Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 365

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Trends in National and State-Level Obesity in the USA after Correction for Self-Report Bias: Analysis of Health Surveys

Open access
Ezzati, Majid, Martin, Hilarie, Skjold, Suzanne, Hoorn, Stephen Vander, Murray, Christopher J L·2006·Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Abstract

Objectives: To quantify population-level bias in self-reported weight and height as a function of age, sex, and the mode of self-report, and to estimate unbiased trends in national and state level obesity in the USA. Design: Statistical analysis of repeated cross-sectional health examination surveys (the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey [NHANES]) and health surveys (the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System [BRFSS]) in the USA. Setting: The 50 states of the USA and the District of Columbia. Results: In the USA, on average, women underreported their weight, but men did not. Young and middle-aged (565 years) adult men over-reported their height more than women of the same age. In older age groups, over-reporting of height was similar in men and women. Population-level bias in self-reported weight was larger in telephone interviews (BRFSS) than in-person interviews (NHANES). Except in older adults, height was over-reported more often in telephone interviews than in-person interviews. Using corrected weight and height in the year 2000, Mississippi (31%) and Texas (30%) had the highest prevalence of obesity for men; Texas (37%), Louisiana (37%), Mississippi (37%), District of Columbia (37%), Alabama (37%), and South Carolina (36%) for women. Conclusions: Population-level bias in self-reported weight and height is larger in telephone interviews than in-person interviews. Telephone interviews are a low-cost method for regular, nationally- and sub-nationally representative monitoring of obesity. It is possible to obtain corrected estimates of trends and geographical distributions of obesity from telephone interviews by using systematic analysis which measure weight and height from an independent sample of the same population.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/014107680609900517

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. National Center for Health Statistics., 1994, Vital Health Stat, 32, 1
  2. Objectives and design of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System., 1998, Proceedings Of The Section On Survey Methods, American Statistical Association National Meeting, 1998, Dallas, Texas.
  3. Remington P.L., 1988, Public Health Rep, 103, 366

Cited by

See all 365

Metadata

Authors
Ezzati, M., Martin, H., Skjold, S., Hoorn, S. V., & Murray, C. J. L.
Venue
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
Published
2006-05
Volume
99
Issue
5
Pages
250-257
ISSN
  • 0141-0768 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1095
OpenAlex
W2159724520
Cited by
365
References
21
FWCI
27.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trends in National and State-Level Obesity in the USA after Correction for Self-Report Bias: Analysis of Health Surveys. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/014107680609900517
The paper
Ezzati, M., Martin, H., Skjold, S., Hoorn, S. V., & Murray, C. J. L. (2006). Trends in National and State-Level Obesity in the USA after Correction for Self-Report Bias: Analysis of Health Surveys. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609900517

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.