Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Launch of a checklist for reporting longitudinal observational drug studies in rheumatology: a EULAR extension of STROBE guidelines based on experience from biologics registries
  1. Jakub Zavada1,
  2. William G Dixon2,
  3. Johan Askling3,4,
  4. for the EULAR Study group on Longitudinal Observational Registers and Drug Studies
  1. 1Institute of Rheumatology, Prague, Czech Republic
  2. 2Arthritis Research UK Epidemiology Unit, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  3. 3Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  4. 4Department of Rheumatology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
  1. Correspondence to Dr Johan Askling, Clinical Epidemiology Unit T2:01, Department of Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm SE-171 76, Sweden; Johan.askling{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The advent and increased use of targeted therapies in rheumatology have stimulated the establishment of clinical drug registers. Such registers have evaluated a broad spectrum of outcomes in patients exposed to these uniquely designed, potent and expensive drugs.1–8 Although the main focus of most drug registers in rheumatology is drug safety, other important issues include drug usage, real-life effectiveness and economic consequences.

Results from biologics registers have come to play an important role in the evaluation of safety, effectiveness and treatment strategies, contributing significantly to the evidence base that guides clinical practice and shapes policy decisions. It is thus vital that the underlying studies are carefully conducted, analysed and transparently reported. This ensures (a proper appraisal of) the …

View Full Text


  • Contributors All authors have equally contributed in the discussions about the concept of the work. JZ has written the manuscript, WGD and JA have critically reviewed the manuscript, and all three authors have agreed to authorship.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.