JGIM

RESEARCH METHODS
A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey
Studies (CROSS)
Akash Sharma, MBBS1,2 , Nguyen Tran Minh Duc, MD2,3 , Tai Luu Lam Thang, MD2,4 ,
Nguyen Hai Nam, MD2,5 , Sze Jia Ng, MD2,6 , Kirellos Said Abbas, MBCH2,7 ,
Nguyen Tien Huy, MD, PhD8 , Ana Marušić, MD, PhD9 , Christine L. Paul, PhD10,
Janette Kwok, MBBS11 , Juntra Karbwang, MD, PhD12,
Chiara de Waure, MD, MSc, PhD13 , Frances J. Drummond, PhD14 ,
Yoshiyuki Kizawa, MD, PhD15 , Erik Taal, PhD16 , Joeri Vermeulen, MSN, CM17,18 ,
Gillian H. M. Lee, PhD19 , Adam Gyedu, MD, MPH20 , Kien Gia To, PhD21 ,
Martin L. Verra, PhD22 , Évelyne M. Jacqz-Aigrain, MD, PhD23 ,
Wouter K. G. Leclercq, MD24 , Simo T. Salminen, PhD25,
Cathy Donald Sherbourne, PhD26, Barbara Mintzes, PhD27 , Sergi Lozano, PhD28 ,
Ulrich S. Tran, DSc29 , Mitsuaki Matsui, MD, MSc, PhD12 , and
Mohammad Karamouzian, DVM, MSc, PhD candidate30,31
1
University College of Medical Sciences and Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, India; 2Online Research Club, Nagasaki, Japan;
3
Faculty of Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; 4Department of Emergency, City’s Children Hospital, Ho
Chi Minh City, Vietnam; 5Division of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine,
Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan; 6Department of Medicine, Crozer Chester Medical Center, Upland, PA, USA; 7Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria
University, Alexandria, Egypt; 8Institute of Tropical Medicine (NEKKEN) and School of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki University,
Nagasaki, Japan; 9Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia; 10School of Medicine
and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia; 11Division of Transplantation and Immunogenetics, Department of Pathology,
Queen Mary Hospital Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong; 12School of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan;
13
Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy; 14Cancer Research at UCC, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland;
15
Department of Palliative Medicine, Kobe University School of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan; 16Department of Psychology, Health & Technology,
Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands; 17Department of Public Health,
Biostatistics and Medical Informatics Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium; 18Department of Health Care, Knowledge
Centre Brussels Integrated Care, Erasmus Brussels University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Brussels, Belgium; 19Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics,
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong; 20Department of Surgery, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Kwame Nkrumah
University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana; 21Faculty of Public Health, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam;
22
Department of Physiotherapy, Bern University Hospital, Insel Group, Bern, Switzerland; 23Hopital Robert-Debre AP-HP, Clinical Investigation Center,
Paris, France; 24Department of Surgery, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, Veldhoven, the Netherlands; 25Department of Social Psychology,
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; 26RAND, Santa Monica, CA, USA; 27School of Pharmacy and Charles Perkins Centrey, Faculty of Medicine and
Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; 28School of Economics, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 29Department of Cognition,
Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 30School of Population and Public Health,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 31HIV/STI Surveillance Research Center, and WHO Collaborating Center for HIV
Surveillance, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.

KEY WORDS: Checklist; Surveys and Questionnaires; Delphi technique. can be administered quicker than some other methods of data
gathering and facilitate data collection from a large number of
J Gen Intern Med 36(10):3179–87
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-021-06737-1 participants. Numerous questions can be included in a survey
© Society of General Internal Medicine 2021 that allow for increased flexibility in evaluation of several
research areas, such as analysis of risk factors, treatment
outcomes, disease trends, cost-effectiveness of care, and qual-
INTRODUCTION ity of life. Surveys can be conducted by phone, mail, face-
to-face, or online using web-based software and applica-
A survey is a list of questions aiming to extract a set of desired tions. Online surveys can help reduce or prevent geograph-
data or opinions from a particular group of people.1 Surveys ical dependence and increase the validity, reliability, and
statistical power of the studies. Moreover, online surveys
Akash Sharma and Minh Duc Nguyen Tran contributed equally to this
facilitate rapid survey administration as well as data collec-
work.
Received September 15, 2020
tion and analysis.2
Accepted March 17, 2021 Surveys are frequently used in a variety of research areas.
Published online April 22, 2021 For example, a PubMed search of the key word “survey” on
3179
3180 Sharma et al.: Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies JGIM

January 7, 2021, generated over 1,519,000 results. These also little information available about the experts involved in
studies are used for a number of purposes, including but not the development of these checklists. SURGE’s limited cita-
limited to opinion polls, trend analyses, evaluation of policies, tions since its publication suggest that it is not commonly used
measuring the prevalence of diseases.3–12 Although many sur- by authors and not recommended by journals. Furthermore,
veys have been published in high-impact journals, comprehen- even after the development of these guidelines (SURGE and
sive reporting guidelines for survey research are limited13, 14 CHERRIES), there has been limited improvement in reporting
and substantial variabilities and inconsistencies can be identi- of surveys. For example, Alvin et al. reviewed 102 surveys in
fied in the reporting of survey studies. Indeed, different studies top nephrology journals and found that the quality of surveys
have presented multiform patterns of survey designs and re- was suboptimal and highlighted the need for new reporting
ported results in various non-systematic ways.15–17 guidelines to improve reporting quality and increase transpar-
Evidence-based tools developed by experts could help ency.25 Similarly, Prasad et al. found significant heterogeneity
streamline particular procedures that authors could follow to in reporting of radiology surveys published in major radiology
create reproducible and higher quality studies.18–20 Research journals and suggested the need for guidelines to increase the
studies that have transparent and accurate reporting may be homogeneity and generalizability of survey results.26 Mark
more reliable and could have a more significant impact on et al. also found several deficiencies in survey methodologies
their potential audience.19 However, that is often not the case and reporting practices and suggested a need for establishing
when it comes to reporting research findings. For example, minimum reporting standards for survey studies.27 Similar
Moher et al.20 reported that, although over 63,000 new studies concerns regarding the qualities of surveys have been raised
are published in PubMed on a monthly basis, many publica- in other medical fields.28–33
tions face the problem of inadequate reporting. Given the lack Because of concerns regarding survey qualities and lack of
of standardization and poor quality of reporting, the Enhanc- well-developed guidelines, there is a need for a single com-
ing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research prehensive tool that can be used as a standard reporting check-
(EQUATOR) Network was created to help researchers publish list for survey research to address significant discrepancies in
high-impact health research.20 Several important guidelines the reporting of survey studies.13, 25–28, 31, 32 The purpose of
for various types of research studies have been created and this study was to develop a universal checklist for both web-
listed on the EQUATOR website, including but not limited to and non-web-based surveys. Firstly, we established a
the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and encom- workgroup to search the literature for potential items that can
passes (CONSORT) for randomized control trial, Strengthen- be included in our checklist. Secondly, we collected informa-
ing the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology tion about experts in the field of survey research and emailed
(STROBE) for observational studies, and Preferred Reporting them an invitation letter. Lastly, we conducted three rounds of
Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) for rating by the Delphi method.
systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The introduction of
PRISMA checklist in 2009 led to a substantial increase in
the quality of the systemic reviews and is a good example of METHODS
how poor reporting, biases, and unsatisfactory results can be
Our study was performed from January 2018 to December
significantly addressed by implementing and following a val-
2019 using the Delphi method. This method is encouraged for
idated reporting guideline.21
use in scientific research as a feasible and reliable approach to
SURGE22 and CHERRIES23 are frequently recommended
reach final consensus among experts.34 The process of check-
for reporting of non-web and web-based surveys. However, a
list development included five phases: (i) planning; (ii)
report by Tarek et al. found that many items of the SURGE
drafting of checklist items; (iii) consensus building using the
and CHERRIES guidelines (e.g., development, description,
Delphi method; (iv) dissemination of guidelines; and (v)
testing of the questionnaire, advertisement, and administration
maintenance of guidelines.
of the questionnaire, sample representativeness, response
rates, informed consent, statistical analysis) had been missed
by authors. The authors therefore concluded a need to produce
a single universal guideline as a standard quality-reporting tool
Planning Phase
for surveys. Moreover, these guidelines lack a structured In the planning phase, we established a workgroup, secured
approach for the development of guidelines. For example, resources, reviewed the existing reporting guidelines, and
CHERRIES which was developed in 2004 lacks a compre- drafted the plan and timeline of our project. To facilitate the
hensive literature review and the Delphi exercise. These steps development of Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies
are crucial in developing guidelines as they help identify (CROSS), a reporting checklist workgroup was set up. This
potential gaps and opinions of different experts in the field.20, workgroup had seven members from five countries. The expert
24
While the SURGE checklist used a literature review for panel members were found via searching original survey-based
generation of their items, it also lacks the Delphi exercise and studies published between January 2004 and December 2016.
is limited to only self-administered postal surveys. There is The experts were selected based on their number of high-
JGIM Sharma et al.: Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies 3181

impact and highly cited publications using survey research solve any disagreements about the inclusion of items that did
methods. Furthermore, members of the EQUATOR Network not reach consensus in the second round.
and contributors to PRISMA checklist were involved. Panel
members’ information, such as current affiliation, email ad-
dress, and number of survey studies involved in were collected RESULTS
through their ResearchGate profiles (see Supplement 1). Lastly,
A total of 24 experts with a median (Q1, Q3) of 20 (15.75, 31)
a list of potential panel members was created and an invitation
years of research experience participated in our study. Overall,
letter was emailed to every expert to inquire about their interest
24 items were selected in their original form in the first round,
in participating in our study. Consenting experts received a
and 27 items were reviewed in the second round. Out of these
follow-up email with a detailed explanation of the research
27 items, 10 items were merged into five, and 11 items were
objectives and the Delphi approach.
modified based on experts’ comments. In the second round, 24
experts participated and 18 items were finally included. Over-
Drafting the Checklist
all, 18 experts responded in the third round and only one
This process generated a list of potential items that could be additional item was included in this round.
included in the checklist. This procedure included searching the All details regarding the percentage agreement and mean and
literature for potential items to be considered for inclusion in standard deviation (SD) of items included in the checklist are
the checklist, establishing a checklist based on those potential presented in Table 1. CROSS contains 19 sections with 40
items, and revising the checklist. Firstly, we conducted a liter- different items, including “Title and abstract” (section 1);
ature review to identify survey studies published in major “Introduction” (sections 2 and 3); “Methods” (sections 4–10);
medical journals and extracted relevant information for drafting “Results” (sections 11–13); “Discussion” (sections 14–16); and
our potential checklist items (see Supplement 2 for a sample other items (sections 17–19). Please see Supplement 3 for the
search strategy). Secondly, we searched the EQUATOR Net- final checklist.
work for previously published checklists for reporting of sur-
vey studies. Thirdly, three teams of two researchers indepen-
dently extracted the potential items that could be included in DISCUSSION
our checklist. Lastly, our group members worked together to
The development of CROSS is the result of a literature review
revise the checklist and remove any duplicates (Fig. 1). We
and Delphi process which involved international experts with
discussed the importance and relevance of each potential item
significant expertise in the development and implementation
and compared each of them to the selected literature.
of survey studies. CROSS includes both evidenced-informed
and expert consensus-based items which are intended to serve
Consensus Phase Using the Delphi Method
as a tool that helps improve the quality of survey studies.
The first round of Delphi was conducted using SurveyMonkey The detailed descriptions of the methods and procedures in
(SurveyMonkey Inc., San Mateo, CA, USA; www. developing this guideline are provided in this paper so that the
surveymonkey.com). An email was sent to the expert panel quality of the checklist can be assessed by other scholars. Our
containing information about the Delphi process, the timeline Delphi respondent members were made up of a panel of
of each Delphi phase, and a detailed overview of the project. A experts with backgrounds in different disciplines. We also
Likert scale was used for rating items from 1 (strongly dis- spent a considerable amount of time researching and debating
agree) to 5 (strongly agree). Experts were also encouraged to the potential items to be included in our checklist. During the
provide their comments, modify items, or propose a new item Delphi process, the agreement of each potential item was rated
that they felt was necessary to be included in the checklist. by participants according to a 5-point Likert scale. Although
Nonresponding experts were sent weekly follow-up re- the entire process was conducted electronically, we gathered
minders. Items that did not reach consensus were rerated in data and feedback from the participants via email instead of
the second round along with the modified or newly added conducting Skype or face-to-face discussions as suggested by
items. The main objectives of the first round were to determine the EQUATOR network.13
unnecessary items and identify incomplete items in the survey In comparison to the CHERRIES or SURGE checklists,
checklist. A pre-set 70% agreement (70% experts rating 4/5 or CROSS provides a single but comprehensive tool which is
5/5) was used as a cutoff for including an item in the final organized according to the typical primary sections re-
checklist.35 Items that did not reach the 70% agreement thresh- quired for peer-reviewed publications. It also assists re-
old were adjusted according to experts’ feedback and searchers in developing a comprehensive research protocol
redistributed to the panelists for round 2. In the second round, prior to conducting a survey. The “Introduction” provides
we included items that did not reach consensus in round one. a clear overview of the aim of the survey. In the
In this round, experts were also provided with their round one “Methods” section, our checklist provides a detailed ex-
scoring so that they could modify or preserve their previous planation of initiating and developing the survey, includ-
responses. Lastly, a third round of Delphi was launched to ing study design, data collection methods, sample size
3182 Sharma et al.: Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies JGIM

Fig. 1 Different stages of developing the checklist.

calculation, survey administration, study preparation, eth- Dissemination and Maintenance of the
ical considerations, and statistical analysis. The “Results” Checklist
section of CROSS describes the respondent characteristics
Following the consensus phase, we will publish our checklist
followed by the descriptive and main results, issues that
statement together with a detailed Explanation and Elabora-
are not discussed in CHERRIES and SURGE checklists.
tion (E&E) document in which an in-depth explanation of the
Also, our checklist can be used in both non-web-based and
scientific rationale for each recommendation will be provided.
web-based surveys that serves all types of survey-based
To disseminate our final checklist widely, we aim to promote
studies. New items were added to our checklist to address
it in various journals, make it easily available on multiple
the gaps in the available tools. For example, in item 10b,
websites including EQUATOR, and disseminate it through
we included reports of any modification of variables. This
presentations at relevant conferences if necessary. We will
can help researchers to justify and readers to understand
also use social media to reach certain demographics, and also
why there was a need to modify the variables. In item 11b,
the key persons in research organizations who are regularly
we encourage researchers to state the reasons for non-
conducting surveys in different specialties. We also aim to
participation at each stage. Publishing these reasons can
seek endorsement of CROSS by journal editors, professional
be useful for future researchers intending to conduct a
societies, and researchers, and to collect feedback from
similar survey. Finally, we have added components related
scholars about their experience.
to limitations, interpretation, and generalizability of study
Taking comments, critics, and suggestion from experts for
results to the “Discussion” section, which are an important
revising and correcting our guidelines could help maintain the
effort in increasing transparency and external validity.
relevancy of the checklist. Lastly, we are planning on publish-
These components are missing from previous checklists
ing CROSS in several non-English languages to increase its
(i.e., CHERRIES and SURGE).
accessibility across the scientific community.
JGIM Sharma et al.: Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies 3183

Table 1 Percentage Agreement and Mean Score with Standard Deviation of the Items in Different Rounds

Section/topic Item Item description Item included Agreement in Agreement in Agreement in

after which round round 1 (%) round 2 (%) round 3 (%)
of Delphi (round Mean score* ± Mean score ± Mean score ±
1/round 2/round standard standard standard
3) deviation deviation deviation

Title and abstract

Title and abstract 1a State the word “survey” along with a Round 1 86.3% - -
commonly used term in title or 4.23 ± 0.69
abstract to introduce the study’s
design.
1b Provide an informative summary in Round 2 95.6% 95.4% -
the abstract, covering background, 4.70 ± 0.56
objectives, methods, findings/results,
interpretation/discussion, and
conclusions.
Introduction
Background 2 Provide a background about the Round 2 87.5% 95.4% -
rationale of study, what has been 4.42 ± 0.83
previously done, and why this survey
is needed.
Purpose/aim 3 Identify specific purposes, aims, Round 1 95.65% - -
goals, or objectives of the study. 4.78 ± 0.52
Methods
Study design 4 Specify the study design in the Round 2 86.9% 86.3% -
“Methods” section with a commonly 4.26 ± 0.96
used term (e.g., cross-sectional or
longitudinal).
Data collection 5a Describe the questionnaire (e.g., Round 2 75% 77.2% -
methods number of sections, number of 3.88 ± 0.99
questions, number and names of
instruments used).
5b Describe all questionnaire Round 2 78.2% 72.7% -
instruments that were used in the 4.00 ± 1.04 4.055±0.96
survey to measure particular
concepts. Report target population,
reported validity and reliability
information, scoring/classification
procedure, and reference links (if
any).
5c Provide information on pretesting of Round 2 79.1% 86.3% -
the questionnaire, if performed (in the 4.08 ± 0.83
article or in an online supplement).
Report the method of pretesting,
number of times questionnaire was
pre-tested, number and demographics
of participants used for pretesting,
and the level of similarity of
demographics between pre-testing
participants and sample population.
5d Questionnaire, if possible, should be Round 2 83.3% 77.2% -
fully provided (in the article, or as 4.25 ± 0.85
appendices or as an online
supplement).
Sample 6a Describe the study population (i.e., Round 1 95.5% - -
characteristics background, locations, eligibility 4.74 ± 0.69
criteria for participant inclusion in
survey, exclusion criteria).
6b Describe the sampling techniques Round 1 95.8% - -
used (e.g., single stage or multistage 4.54 ± 0.72
sampling, simple random sampling,
stratified sampling, cluster sampling,
convenience sampling). Specify the
locations of sample participants
whenever clustered sampling was
applied.
6c Provide information on sample size, Round 1 83.3% - -
along with details of sample size 4.42 ± 0.88
calculation.
6d Describe how representative the Round 1 83.3% - -
sample is of the study population (or 4.21 ± 0.83
target population if possible),
particularly for population-based sur-
veys.
Survey 7a Provide information on modes of Round 2 91.6% 86.3% -
administration questionnaire administration, 4.33 ± 0.64 4.33±0.61
(continued on next page)
3184 Sharma et al.: Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies JGIM

Table 1. (continued)

Section/topic Item Item description Item included Agreement in Agreement in Agreement in

after which round round 1 (%) round 2 (%) round 3 (%)
of Delphi (round Mean score* ± Mean score ± Mean score ±
1/round 2/round standard standard standard
3) deviation deviation deviation

including the type and number of

contacts, the location where the
survey was conducted (e.g.,
outpatient room or by use of online
tools, such as SurveyMonkey).
7b Provide information of survey’s time Round 1 100% - -
frame, such as periods of recruitment, 4.13 ± 0.85
exposure, and follow-up days.
7c Provide information on the entry Round 2 79.1% 90.9% -
process: 4.52 ± 0.51
–>For non-web-based surveys, pro-
vide approaches to minimize human
error in data entry.
–>For web-based surveys, provide
approaches to prevent “multiple par-
ticipation” of participants.
Study preparation 8 Describe any preparation process Round 3 58.3% 61.1% 77.7%
before conducting the survey (e.g., 3.63 ±0.93 3.83±0.78 3.83±0.85
interviewers’ training process,
advertising the survey).
Ethical 9a Provide information on ethical Round 2 91.3% 72.7% -
considerations approval for the survey if obtained, 4.61 ± 0.89 4±1.31
including informed consent,
institutional review board [IRB]
approval, Helsinki declaration, and
good clinical practice [GCP]
declaration (as appropriate).
9c Provide information about survey Round 1 83.3% - -
anonymity and confidentiality and 4.25 ± 1.07
describe what mechanisms were used
to protect unauthorized access.
Statistical analysis 10a Describe statistical methods and Round 1 95.8% - -
analytical approach. Report the 4.58 ± 0.88
statistical software that was used for
data analysis.
10b Report any modification of variables Round 2 75% 83.3% -
used in the analysis, along with 4.00 ± 1.14 4.16±0.71
reference (if available).
10c Report details about how missing Round 2 96.6% 77.2% -
data was handled. Include rate of 4.57 ± 0.73 4.44±0.81
missing items, missing data
mechanism (i.e., missing completely
at random [MCAR], missing at
random [MAR], or missing not at
random [MNAR]), and methods used
to deal with missing data (e.g.,
multiple imputation).
10d State how non-response error was Round 2 70.8% 77.2% -
addressed. 4.04 ± 0.91 4.11±0.70
10e For longitudinal surveys, state how Round 2 79.1% 86.3% -
loss to follow-up was addressed. 4.08 ± 1.02 4.44±0.62
10f Indicate whether any methods such Round 1 83.3% -
as weighting of items or propensity 4.17 ± 1.05
scores have been used to adjust for
non-representativeness of the sample.
10g Describe any sensitivity analysis Round 2 78.2% 86.3% -
conducted. 3.96 ± 0.77
Results
Respondent 11a Report numbers of individuals at Round 1 95.4% - -
characteristics each stage of the study. Consider 4.59 ± 0.59
using a flow diagram, if possible.
11b Provide reasons for non-participation Round 1 77.2% - -
at each stage, if possible. 4.05 ± 0.84
11c Report response rate, present the Round 1 95.2% - -
definition of response rate or the 4.33 ± 0.73
formula used to calculate response
rate.
11d Provide information to define how Round 1 77.2% - -
unique visitors are determined. 4.05 ± 0.84
Report number of unique visitors
(continued on next page)
JGIM Sharma et al.: Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies 3185

Table 1. (continued)

Section/topic Item Item description Item included Agreement in Agreement in Agreement in

after which round round 1 (%) round 2 (%) round 3 (%)
of Delphi (round Mean score* ± Mean score ± Mean score ±
1/round 2/round standard standard standard
3) deviation deviation deviation

along with relevant proportions (e.g.,

view proportion, participation
proportion, completion proportion).
Descriptive results 12 Provide characteristics of study Round 1 95.2% - -
participants, as well as information 4.57 ± 0.6
on potential confounders and
assessed outcomes.
Main findings 13a Give unadjusted estimates and, if Round 1 77.2% - -
applicable, confounder-adjusted esti- 4.32 ± 0.84
mates along with 95% confidence
intervals and p values.
13b For multivariable analysis, provide Round 1 90.9% - -
information on the model building 4.55 ± 0.8
process, model fit statistics, and
model assumptions (as appropriate).
13c Provide details about any sensitivity Round 2 81.8% 77.2% -
analysis performed. If there are 4.14 ± 0.83 4.05±0.70
considerable amount of missing data,
report sensitivity analyses comparing
the results of complete cases with that
of the imputed dataset (if possible).
Discussion
Limitations 14 Discuss the limitations of the study, Round 1 95.4% - -
considering sources of potential 4.86 ± 0.47
biases and imprecisions, such as non-
representativeness of sample, study
design, important uncontrolled con-
founders.
Interpretations 15 Give a cautious overall interpretation Round 1 95.4% - -
of results, based on potential biases 4.59 ± 0.73
and imprecisions and suggest areas
for future research.
Generalizability 16 Discuss the external validity of the Round 1 90.9% - -
results. 4.45 ± 0.8
Other sections
Role of the funding 17 State whether any funding Round 1 100.0% - -
source organization has had any roles in the 4.73 ± 0.46
survey’s design, implementation, and
analysis.
Conflict of interest 18 Declare any potential conflict of Round 1 100.0% - -
interest. 4.77 ± 0.43
Acknowledgements 19 Provide names of organizations/ Round 1 90.9% - -
persons that are acknowledged along 4.41±0.67
with their contribution to the re-
search.
*Based on Likert scale rating from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items’ scores were re-rated if major modifications were made in the
previous round

Limitations CONCLUSIONS
We acknowledge the limitations of our study. First, the use of the We think CROSS has the potential to be a beneficial resource
Delphi consensus method may involve some subjectivity in to researchers who are designing and conducting survey stud-
interpreting experts’ responses and suggestions. Second, six ex- ies. Following CROSS before and during the survey adminis-
perts were lost to follow up. Nonetheless, we think our checklist tration could assist researchers to ensure their surveys are
could improve the quality of the reporting of survey studies. sufficiently reliable, reproducible, and transparent.
Similar to other reporting checklists, CROSS requires to be re-
evaluated and revised overtime to ensure it remains relevant and Acknowledgements: We are thankful to Dr. David Moher (Ottawa
Hospital Research Institute, Canada) and Dr. Masahiro Hashizume
up-to-date with evolving research methodologies of survey stud- (Department of Global Health Policy, Graduate School of Medicine, The
ies. We therefore welcome feedback, comments, critiques, and University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan) for initial contribution of the project
suggestions for improvement from the research community. and in rating and development of the checklist. We are also grateful to
Obaida Istanbuly (Keele University, UK) and Omar Diab (Private
3186 Sharma et al.: Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies JGIM

Dental Practice, Jordan) for their contribution in the earlier phases of Institutions and NHS Trusts in England. Nicotine Tob Res
the project. 2020;22(7):1235-1238. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntz192
9. Liu S, Zhu Y, Chen W, Wang L, Zhang X, Zhang Y. Demographic and
Corresponding Author: Nguyen Tien Huy, MD, PhD; Institute of Socioeconomic Factors Influencing the Incidence of Ankle Fractures, a
Tropical Medicine (NEKKEN) and School of Tropical Medicine and National Population-Based Survey of 512187 Individuals. Sci Rep
Global Health, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki 852-8523, Japan 2018;8(1):10443. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28722-1
(e-mail: [email protected]). 10. Tamanini JTN, Pallone LV, Sartori MGF, Girão MJBC, Dos Santos JLF,
de Oliveira Duarte YA, van Kerrebroeck PEVA. A Populational-Based
The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// Survey on the Prevalence, Incidence, and Risk Factors of Urinary
doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-06737-1. Incontinence in Older Adults-Results from the “SABE STUDY”. Neurourol
Urodyn 2018;37(1):466-477. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23331
11. Tink W, Tink JC, Turin TC, Kelly M. Adverse childhood experiences:
survey of resident practice, knowledge, and attitude. Fam Med
2017;49(1):7-13
12. Shi S, Lio J, Dong H, Jiang I, Cooper B, Sherer R. Evaluation of
Author Contribution NTH is the generator of the idea, and Geriatrics Education at a Chinese University: a Survey of Attitudes and
supervised and helped in writing, reviewing, and mediating Delphi Knowledge Among Undergraduate Medical Students. Gerontol Geriatr
process; AS participated in making a draft of guidelines, mediating Educ 2020;41(2):242-249. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.
Delphi process, analysis of results, writing, and process validation; 2018.1468324
TLT helped in making a draft of guidelines, and analysis; MNT helped 13. Bennett, C., Khangura, S., Brehaut, J. C., Graham, I. D., Moher, D.,
in drafting checklist and mediating Delphi process; NNH, NSJ, KSA, Potter, B. K., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2010). Reporting Guidelines for Survey
and MK helped in writing and mediating Delphi; AM, JK, CLP, JKB, Research: an Analysis of Published Guidance and Reporting Practices.
CDW, FJD, MH, YK, EK, JV, GHL, AG, KGT, ML, EMJ, WKL, STS, CDS, PLoS Med, 8(8), e1001069. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.
BM, SL, UST, MM and MK helped in the rating of items in Delphi 1001069
rounds and reviewing the manuscript. 14. Turk T, Elhady MT, Rashed S, Abdelkhalek M, Nasef SA, Khallaf AM,
Mohammed AT, Attia AW, Adhikari P, Amin MA, Hirayama K, Huy NT.
Quality of Reporting Web-Based and Non-web-based Survey Studies:
What Authors, Reviewers and Consumers Should Consider. PLoS One
Funding None.
2018;13(6):e0194239. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0194239
15. Jones, T. L., Baxter, M. A., & Khanduja, V. (2013). A Quick Guide to
Declarations: Survey Research. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 95(1), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.
1308/003588413X13511609956372
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they do not have a 16. Jones D, Story D, Clavisi O, Jones R, Peyton P. An Introductory Guide
conflict of interest. to Survey Research in Anaesthesia. Anaesth Intensive Care
2006;34(2):245-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/
Ethics approval: Ethics approval was not required for the study. 0310057X0603400219
17. Alderman AK, Salem B. Survey Research. Plast Reconstr Surg
2010;126(4):1381-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.
0b013e3181ea44f9
18. Moher D, Weeks L, Ocampo M, Seely D, Sampson M, Altman DG,
Schulz KF, Miller D, Simera I, Grimshaw J, Hoey J. Describing
REFERENCES Reporting Guidelines for Health Research: a Systematic Review. J Clin
Epidemiol 2011;64(7):718-42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.
1. Wikipedia contributors. (2020). Survey (human research). In Wikipedia,
2010.09.013
The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:59, December 26, 2020, from
19. Simera, I., Moher, D., Hirst, A. et al. Transparent and Accurate
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survey_(human_research)
Reporting Increases Reliability, Utility, and Impact of Your Research:
&oldid=994953597.
Reporting Guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med 8, 24 (2010).
2. Maymone MBC, Venkatesh S, Secemsky E, Reddy K, Vashi NA.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-24
Research Techniques Made Simple: Web-Based Survey Research in
20. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for Developers of
Dermatology: Conduct and Applications. J Invest Dermatol
Health Research Reporting Guidelines. PLoS Med 2010;7(2):e1000217.
2018;138(7):1456-1462. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2018.02.032.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217
3. Alcock I, White MP, Pahl S, Duarte-Davidson R, Fleming LE.
21. Tan WK, Wigley J, Shantikumar S. The Reporting Quality of Systematic
Associations Between Pro-environmental Behaviour and Neighbourhood
Reviews and Meta-analyses in Vascular Surgery Needs Improvement: a
Nature, Nature Visit Frequency and Nature Appreciation: Evidence from
Systematic Review. Int J Surg 2014;12(12):1262-5. doi: https://doi.org/
a Nationally Representative Survey in England, Environ Int
10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.10.015
2020;136:105441. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105441.
22. Grimshaw, J. (2014). SURGE (The SUrvey Reporting GuidelinE). In
4. Siddiqui J, Brown K, Zahid A, Young CJ. Current Practices and
Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: a User’s Manual (eds D.
Barriers to Referral for Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC Among
Moher, D.G. Altman, K.F. Schulz, I. Simera and E. Wager). https://doi.
Colorectal Surgeons: a Binational Survey. Eur J Surg Oncol
org/10.1002/9781118715598.ch20
2020;46(1):166-172. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.09.007
23. Eysenbach G. Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for
5. Lee JG, Park CH, Chung H, Park JC, Kim DH, Lee BI, Byeon JS, Jung
Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res
HY. Current Status and Trend in Training for Endoscopic Submucosal
2004;6(3):e34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34.
Dissection: a Nationwide Survey in Korea. PLoS One
24. EquatorNetwork.org. Developing your reporting guideline. 3 July 2018
2020;15(5):e0232691. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
[cited 12/28/2020]; Available from: https://www.equator-network.org/
0232691
toolkits/developing-a-reporting-guideline/developing-your-reporting-
6. McChesney SL, Zelhart MD, Green RL, Nichols RL. Current U.S. Pre-
guideline/.
Operative Bowel Preparation Trends: a 2018 Survey of the American
25. Li AH, Thomas SM, Farag A, Duffett M, Garg AX, Naylor KL. Quality of
Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Members. Surg Infect 2020;21(1):1-
Survey Reporting in Nephrology Journals: a Methodologic Review. Clin J
8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2019.125
Am Soc Nephrol 2014;9(12):2089-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.
7. Núñez A, Manzano CA, Chi C. Health Outcomes, Utilization, and Equity
02130214
in Chile: an Evolution from 1990 to 2015 and the Effects of the Last
26. Shankar PR, Maturen KE. Survey Research Reporting in Radiology
Health Reform. Public Health 2020;178:38-48. doi: https://doi.org/10.
Publications: a Review of 2017 to 2018. J Am Coll Radiol
1016/j.puhe.2019.08.017
2019;16(10):1378-1384. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2019.07.
8. Blackwell AKM, Kosīte D, Marteau TM, Munafò MR. Policies for
012
Tobacco and E-Cigarette Use: a Survey of All Higher Education
JGIM Sharma et al.: Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies 3187

27. Duffett M, Burns KE, Adhikari NK, Arnold DM, Lauzier F, Kho ME, 32. Mulvany JL, Hetherington VJ, VanGeest JB. Survey Research in
Meade MO, Hayani O, Koo K, Choong K, Lamontagne F, Zhou Q, Cook Podiatric Medicine: an Analysis of the Reporting of Response Rates and
DJ. Quality of Reporting of Surveys in Critical Care Journals: a Non-response Bias. Foot (Edinb) 2019;40:92-97. doi: https://doi.org/10.
Methodologic Review. Crit Care Med 2012 Feb;40(2):441-9. doi: https:// 1016/j.foot.2019.05.005
doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e318232d6c6 33. Tabernero P, Parker M, Ravinetto R, Phanouvong S, Yeung S, Kitutu
28. Story DA, Gin V, na Ranong V, Poustie S, Jones D; ANZCA Trials Group. FE, Cheah PY, Mayxay M, Guerin PJ, Newton PN. Ethical Challenges in
Inconsistent Survey Reporting in Anesthesia Journals. Anesth Analg Designing and Conducting Medicine Quality Surveys. Tropical Med Int
2 011; 11 3( 3 ):5 91 -5 . d oi : http s: //do i.o rg/10 .12 13 /ANE . Health 2016 Jun;21(6):799-806. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.
0b013e3182264aaf 12707
29. Marcopulos BA, Guterbock TM, Matusz EF. [Formula: see text] Survey 34. Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna H. Consulting the Oracle: Ten Lessons
Research in Neuropsychology: a Systematic Review. Clin Neuropsychol from Using the Delphi Technique in Nursing Research. J Adv Nurs 2006;
2020;34(1):32-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2019. 53(2): 205-12 8p. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.
1590643 03716.x.
30. Rybakov KN, Beckett R, Dilley I, Sheehan AH. Reporting Quality of 35. Zamanzadeh V, Rassouli M, Abbaszadeh A, Alavi-Majd H, Nikanfar A,
Survey Research Articles Published in the Pharmacy Literature. Res Soc Ghahramanian A. Details of content validity index and objectifying it in
Adm Pharm 2020;16(10):1354-1358. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. instrument development. Nursing Pract Today 2014; 1(3): 163-71.
sapharm.2020.01.005
31. Pagano MB, Dunbar NM, Tinmouth A, Apelseth TO, Lozano M, Cohn
CS, Stanworth SJ; Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) Publisher’s Note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Collaborative. A Methodological Review of the Quality of Reporting of jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Surveys in Transfusion Medicine. Transfusion. 2018;58(11):2720-2727.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.14937