Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES)

By Gunther Eysenbach. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2004

5,612 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Analogous to checklists of recommendations such as the CONSORT statement (for randomized trials), or the QUORUM statement (for systematic reviews), which are designed to ensure the quality of reports in the medical literature, a checklist of recommendations for authors is being presented by the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) in an effort to ensure complete descriptions of Web-based surveys. Papers on Web-based surveys reported according to the CHERRIES statement will give readers a better understanding of the sample (self-)selection and its possible differences from a “representative” sample. It is hoped that author adherence to the checklist will increase the usefulness of such reports.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/681599a644686a4f0a548b53c1720d9cd44a2d30

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

1. H. Ball
2. Bryce L. Jorgensen
3. S. Kwon
4. Jungrak Hong
5. Sung-Woo Choi
6. H. Lee
7. J. Kim
8. Songhee Oh

In Sociology and Political Science

1. H. Ball
2. Bryce L. Jorgensen
3. S. Kwon
4. Jungrak Hong
5. Sung-Woo Choi
6. H. Lee
7. J. Kim
8. Songhee Oh

Citations in the corpus

• Financial Literacy of College Students: Parental and Peer Influences (2007, background): “The percentage of people without Internet access, in particular the more vulnerable populations (e.g., elderly and poor), is still fairly large (Dillman, 2000; Eysenbach, 2004).”
• TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences (2016, background): “It is typically good practice to report the completion rate (Eysenbach, 2004); however, this information is not available on MTurk.”
• A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians (2008, background): “Although infrequently adopted, several recommendations have been published for reporting findings from postal and electronic surveys.(43) One set of recommended questions to consider when writing a report of findings from postal surveys appears in Table 4.”
• Conducting Online Surveys (2019, methodology): “Eysenbach (2004) advises that many journals routinely reject reports of online surveys due to their lack of rigor.”
• Sharing Health Data for Better Outcomes on PatientsLikeMe (2010, methodology): “Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys The following information is provided to comply with the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys [30].”
• CONSORT-EHEALTH: Improving and Standardizing Evaluation Reports of Web-based and Mobile Health Interventions (2011, methodology): “While at JMIR we are requiring authors to submit the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) checklist [7-11] and use additional checklists for some aspects of these trials (eg, Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys [CHERRIES] [12]), internationally developed and adopted”
• A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) (2021, background): “Furthermore, even after the development of these guidelines (SURGE and CHERRIES), there has been limited improvement in reporting of surveys.”
• Understanding COVID-19 vaccine demand and hesitancy: A nationwide online survey in China (2020, background): “The intrinsic disadvantages of Web-based surveys concern the generality and validity of results warranting careful interpretation of the research findings [36,37].”
• Physician Confidence in Artificial Intelligence: An Online Mobile Survey (2018, methodology): “Our survey was in accordance with the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-survey (CHERRIES) [31].”