The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 2 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Cross-Sectional Studies
Open accessAbstract
Cross-sectional studies are observational studies that analyze data from a population at a single point in time. They are often used to measure the prevalence of health outcomes, understand determinants of health, and describe features of a population. Unlike other types of observational studies, cross-sectional studies do not follow individuals up over time. They are usually inexpensive and easy to conduct. They are useful for establishing preliminary evidence in planning a future advanced study. This article reviews the essential characteristics, describes strengths and weaknesses, discusses methodological issues, and gives our recommendations on design and statistical analysis for cross-sectional studies in pulmonary and critical care medicine. A list of considerations for reviewers is also provided.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
11 Own interpretation · 1 Sources not found · 1 No full text of the sources
In the paper
“Prevalenceincidence bias (also called the Neyman bias) is also particularly common in cross-sectional studies.13”
§ Cross-Sectional Studies Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations > Bias
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [13] Tripepi, 2010, Selection bias and information bias in clinical research, Nephron Clin Pract source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They cannot be used to look at individual change (as in a cohort study).”
§ Cross-Sectional Studies Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations > Description of Subtypes of Cross-Sectional Studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the outcome and exposure variables are measured at the same time, it is relatively difficult to establish causal relationships from a cross-sectional study.”
- Also stated in: § Description of Subtypes of Cross-Sectional Studies · plain
“The exposures and outcomes are measured simultaneously; therefore, it is difficult to determine whether the exposures preceded or followed the outcomes in an analytical cross-sectional study.”
- Also stated in: § Benefits and Downside of Cross-Sectional Studies · plain
“The weaknesses of cross-sectional studies include the inability to assess incidence, to study rare diseases, and to make a causal inference.”
§ Cross-Sectional Studies Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations > General Overview of Cross-Sectional Study Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Description of Subtypes of Cross-Sectional Studies · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, repeated cross-sectional studies can be used for analyzing population changes over time (also known as aggregate change over time).”
§ Cross-Sectional Studies Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations > Description of Subtypes of Cross-Sectional Studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“If one wants to compare two prevalence rates in an analytical cross-sectional study, the commonly used sample size formula is the same as is used when designing a cohort study.6”
§ Cross-Sectional Studies Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations > Sample Size Determination
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [6] Fleiss, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unlike studies starting from a series of patients, cross-sectional studies often need to select a sample of subjects from a large and heterogeneous study population.Thus, they are susceptible to sampling bias.”
§ Cross-Sectional Studies Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations > Benefits and Downside of Cross-Sectional Studies
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The subjects are neither deliberately exposed nor treated; thus, there are seldom ethical difficulties.”
§ Cross-Sectional Studies Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations > Benefits and Downside of Cross-Sectional Studies
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 4
- It may state two separate claims as one. 3
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Stepwise selection methods and P value-based criteria are discouraged due to overfitting and because they often allow too many parameters to be included, which reduces the generalizability of the model.”
§ Cross-Sectional Studies Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations > Additional information
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Confounding could result in a distortion of the association between exposure and outcome.”
§ Cross-Sectional Studies Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations > Confounding
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that the sample size in a descriptive study does not depend on statistical power because this concept only applies to statistical comparisons.”
§ Cross-Sectional Studies Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations > Sample Size Determination
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The weaknesses of cross-sectional studies include the inability to assess incidence, to study rare diseases, and to make a causal inference.”
- Also stated in: § 1. The study population and the research question. · plain
“Unable to measure the incidence”
§ Cross-Sectional Studies Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations > Benefits and Downside of Cross-Sectional Studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § 1. The study population and the research question. · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only with full and transparent reporting of information on all aspects of a cross-sectional study can potential usefulness of its findings and risk of bias be adequately assessed.”
§ Cross-Sectional Studies Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because exposure and outcome are measured simultaneously in a cross-sectional study, prior knowledge of the condition might influence the ascertainment of the exposure or the outcome, which results in recall bias.”
§ Cross-Sectional Studies Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations > Bias
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Cross-sectional studies are usually quick and inexpensive to conduct.
“They are usually inexpensive and easy to conduct.”
“The main strength of cross-sectional studies is that they are relatively quick and inexpensive to conduct.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cross-sectional studies are the best way to determine prevalence.
“They are the best way to determine the prevalence and can study the associations of multiple exposures and outcomes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cross-sectional studies can study the associations of multiple exposures and outcomes.
“They are the best way to determine the prevalence and can study the associations of multiple exposures and outcomes.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cross-sectional studies are useful for establishing preliminary evidence in planning a future advanced study.
“They are useful for establishing preliminary evidence in planning a future advanced study.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cross-sectional studies are suitable for generating hypotheses and may provide information about the prevalence of outcomes and exposures that informs other study designs.
“They are suitable for generating hypotheses and may provide information about the prevalence of outcomes and exposures that informs other study designs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Using questionnaires to reach a large sample of the population of interest is relatively inexpensive but can result in low response rates.
“Using questionnaires to reach a large sample of the population of interest is relatively inexpensive but can result in low response rates.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Interviews are more expensive and time-consuming than using questionnaires, potentially limiting the sample size but leading to a higher response rate.
“Interviews are more expensive and time-consuming than using questionnaires, potentially limiting the sample size but leading to a higher response rate.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cross-sectional studies cannot study rare diseases.
“The weaknesses of cross-sectional studies include the inability to assess incidence, to study rare diseases, and to make a causal inference.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Probability sampling methods are more accurate and rigorous than nonprobability sampling methods.
“In general, probability sampling methods are preferred over nonprobability ones, as the former are considered to be more accurate and rigorous.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Nonresponse bias is usually encountered in cross-sectional survey studies with mailed questionnaires.
“A common type of selection bias is the nonresponse bias, which is usually encountered in crosssectional survey studies with mailed questionnaires.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Recall bias and detection bias are two common information biases.
“Recall bias and detection bias are two common information biases.”
Citations
Cites
The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects
ROSENBAUM, P. R., & RUBIN, D. B. (1983) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 · Cited by 31,241
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 · Cited by 23,020
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Austin, P. C. (2011) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 · Cited by 12,242
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2014) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013 · Cited by 9,909
Vandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 · Cited by 8,613
Moons, K. G. M., Altman, D. G., Reitsma, J. B., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Macaskill, P., Steyerberg, E. W., Vickers, A. J., Ransohoff, D. F., & Collins, G. S. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-0698 · Cited by 5,147
Vandenbroucke, J. P., Elm, E. V., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010-w1 · Cited by 3,543
The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983) · Biometrika · doi:10.2307/2335942 · Cited by 3,495
Collins, G. S., Reitsma, J. B., Altman, D. G., & Moons, K. G. M. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-0697 · Cited by 3,267
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cross-sectional research: A critical perspective, use cases, and recommendations for IS research
Maier, C., Thatcher, J. B., Grover, V., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2023) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102625 · Cited by 502
Barker, T. H., Hasanoff, S., Aromataris, E., Stone, J., Leonardi‐Bee, J., Sears, K., Klugar, M., Tufănaru, C., Moola, S., Liu, X., et al. (2025) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-24-00523 · Cited by 324
Risk of Bias Evaluation of Cross‐Sectional Studies: Adaptation of the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale
Carra, M. C., Romandini, P., & Romandini, M. (2026) · Journal of Periodontal Research · doi:10.1111/jre.13405 · Cited by 260
Impact of post-COVID conditions on mental health: a cross-sectional study in Japan and Sweden
Matsumoto, K., Hamatani, S., Shimizu, E., Käll, A., & Andersson, G. (2022) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-022-03874-7 · Cited by 202
“The fourth strength is that the participants have not been intentionally exposed and treated by a particular medical facility because the present research was an online study of cross-sectional study design (Wang and Cheng, 2020) [65].”
BackgroundWang, X., & Kattan, M. W. (2020) · CHEST Journal · doi:10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.014 · Cited by 190
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, X., & Cheng, Z.
- Affiliations
- Cleveland Clinic (US)
- Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Xiaofeng
- Venue
- CHEST
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-07
- Volume
- 158
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- S65-S71
- ISSN
- 0012-3692 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3039445169
- Cited by
- 2,214
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 636 · 2025: 638 · 2024: 423 · 2023: 282 · 2022: 162 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 8
- FWCI
- 90.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- CHEST Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- cross-sectional study, observational study design, prevalence, health determinants, methodological issues, statistical analysis, respiratory medicine, intensive care, research design recommendations, peer review
- MeSH terms
- Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Guidelines as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
