Skip to main content

Languages

Comprehensive overview of conduct and reporting of cross-sectional studies on STROBE Statement in public health field of China

Date and Location

Session: 

P2.047

Date

Saturday 21 September 2013 - 10:30 - 12:00

Location

Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author

Guowu Ding

Contact person

Guowu Ding
Abstract text
Background: Cross-sectional Studies are widespread in public health, however, the studies’ quality are unclear in China. STROBE statement, with the common aim of STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology, provides recommendations in the conduct and dissemination of observational studies. Objectives: To assess the conduct and reporting of cross-sectional studies in public health in China based on STROBE. Methods: An electronic literature search of cross-sectional studies was conducted using the China Disease Knowledge Total Database (CDD), which has one part on cross-sectional studies classified by journals. We selected cross-sectional studies from CDD’s journals in public health randomly by computer and analysed completely on STROBE statement. Two researchers independently screened and extracted the related data, disagreements were resolved by the third one. Results: 199 cross-sectional studies from 13 journals in public health were included. We checked all the 22 Checklist of items of STROBE for cross-sectional studies, 12.6 items were reported on average across included studies. More than half of included studies didnot report or report uncompletely in 9 items (4 in Methods, 3 in Results, 1 in Conclusion and 1 in Other Information part). In Methods part, 196(98.49%) papers didnot report Bias, 186(93.47%) didnot explain the studies size, 142(71.36%) didnot explain how quantitative variables were handled and 104(52.26%) didnot describe all statistical methods. In Results part, 179(89.95%) didnot reporte main results completely, 168(84.42%) didnot reporte other analyses done and 135(67.84%) didnot give descriptive data of participants. 133(66.83%) papers didnot give the funding information. Conclusions: Most cross-sectional studies in public health of China are not up to standard of STROBE statement. For the purpose of improve reliability and standardization of public health research, there is a need to disseminate the STROBE statement on the reporting requirement in public health in China.