1.Begg, M. D., et al., MPH education for the 21st century: design of Columbia University’s new public health curriculum. Am J Public Health, 2014. 104(1): p. 30–6.
2.Blair, S. N., Physical inactivity: the biggest public health problem of the 21st century. Br J Sports Med, 2009. 43(1): p. 1–2.
3.Li, W., B. Chen, and X. Ding, Environment and reproductive health in China: challenges and opportunities. Environ Health Perspect, 2012. 120(5): p. A184–5.
4.NHaFPCotPsRo, C., Beijing: Peking Union Medical College Press. 2015 china health statistics yearbook, 2015.
5.Wang N WY, J. J., et al, The investigation on the current status of cultivation of full-time MPH students in China. Chin J Med Educ Res. 2015;3:228–31.
6.Katikireddi, S. V. and J. Reilly, Characteristics of good supervision: a multi-perspective qualitative exploration of the Masters in Public Health dissertation. J Public Health (Oxf), 2017. 39(3): p. 625–632.
7.Chen, Y., et al., Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in five leading Chinese medical journals. PLoS One, 2010. 5(8): p. e11926.
8.Cho, H. J., et al., Assessments of the quality of randomized controlled trials published in International Journal of Urology from 1994 to 2011. Int J Urol, 2013. 20(12): p. 1212–9.
9.McIntyre, A., et al., The evolution of stroke rehabilitation randomized controlled trials. Int J Stroke, 2014. 9(6): p. 789–92.
10.Stang, A. and E. Kantelhardt, Too many statistical errors for meaningful interpretation. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2013. 138(2): p. 643–4.
11.Wolf, F. M., Methodological quality, evidence, and Research in Medical Education (RIME). Acad Med, 2004. 79(10 Suppl): p. S68–9.
12.Price, E. G., et al., A systematic review of the methodological rigor of studies evaluating cultural competence training of health professionals. Acad Med, 2005. 80(6): p. 578–86.
13.Cook, D. A., T. J. Beckman, and G. Bordage, Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review. Med Educ, 2007. 41(8): p. 737–45.
14.Howley, L., et al., Quality of standardised patient research reports in the medical education literature: review and recommendations. Med Educ, 2008. 42(4): p. 350–8.
15.Vandenbroucke, J. P., The making of STROBE. Epidemiology, 2007. 18(6): p. 797–9.
16.von Elm, E., et al., The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg, 2014. 12(12): p. 1495–9.
17.von Elm, E., et al., The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet, 2007. 370(9596): p. 1453–7.
18.Cuschieri, S., The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth, 2019. 13(Suppl 1): p. S31-s34.
19.Ramke, J., et al., Using the STROBE statement to assess reporting in blindness prevalence surveys in low and middle income countries. PLoS One, 2017. 12(5): p. e0176178.
20.Swords, C., et al., An Assessment of the Change in Compliance of Observational Otology and Audiology Studies With the STROBE Statement Guidelines: A Systematic Review. Otol Neurotol, 2019. 40(3): p. 284–291.
21.Sorensen, A. A., et al., Using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement to assess reporting of observational trials in hand surgery. J Hand Surg Am, 2013. 38(8): p. 1584–9 e2.
22.Irani, M., et al., Weaknesses in the Reporting of Cross-sectional Studies in Accordance with the STROBE Report (The Case of Congenital Anomaly among Infants in Iran): A Review Article. Iran J Public Health, 2018. 47(12): p. 1796–1804.
23.Serrano, M., et al., Adherence to reporting guidelines in observational studies concerning exposure to persistent organic pollutants and effects on semen parameters. Hum Reprod, 2014. 29(6): p. 1122–33.
24.Agha, R. A., et al., Reporting Quality of Observational Studies in Plastic Surgery Needs Improvement: A Systematic Review. Ann Plast Surg, 2016. 76(5): p. 585–9.
25.Pouwels, K. B., et al., Quality of reporting of confounding remained suboptimal after the STROBE guideline. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016. 69: p. 217–24.
26.Rao, A., et al., Quality of Reporting and Study Design of CKD Cohort Studies Assessing Mortality in the Elderly Before and After STROBE: A Systematic Review. PLoS One, 2016. 11(5): p. e0155078.
27.Adams, A.D., et al., Use of the STROBE Checklist to Evaluate the Reporting Quality of Observational Research in Obstetrics. Obstet Gynecol, 2018. 132(2): p. 507–512.
28.Wang, Y. T., et al., [Quality analysis of observational studies on pelvic organ prolapse in China]. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi, 2017. 52(6): p. 379–385.
29.Karacam, Z., E. Sen, and B. Yildirim, Evaluation of observational research reports published in Turkish nursing journals. Int Nurs Rev, 2015. 62(3): p. 394–403.