Talk:Cross-sectional study

I am an economist, and I searched for cross section in order to be sure about the usage of the term in English (my native language is Spanish). However, I was surprised when I read this article, since it does not say anything about what field does it refer to. It seems like it refers to studies in medicine, am I right? I think it should be better specified, since the term cross section is also widely used in statistics and econometrics, with a meaning that is very similar to what this article refers to. It should maybe be merged with the article "cross-sectional data", since they refer pretty much to the same kind of study, but on a different context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.156.105.135 (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I am in a class where the teacher is asking me to describe the cross-sectional views that can occur when cutting a rectangular prism and a cylinder. What should I do? This question is really confusing can you please help me?

A cross-sectional study has very little to do with an algebraic geometry question -- cross-sectional studies are done in the social sciences, not in mathematics. Try asking on the talk page at Cylinder (geometry) or at Cuboid...

Also, I encourage you to keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a homework advice service. (See WP:WIN.) How can you be sure that the answer you get here at Wikipedia will be a correct one, if you don't also think through the questions posed by your teacher on your own?

You may find it useful to read Wikipedia:Who writes Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Schools' FAQ. Mamawrites 16:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is better to keep the distinction going

I have studied a cross section of s stem as also that of a flower in my botony classes. These days I am engaged in consumer research which involves cross sectional sampling. Cross section means different things in these two different contexts. In the case of a stem we are just cutting a stem across and studing the profile of the stem from a different angle. This is a cross sectional study of the stem. The same could be done even in the case of social sciences, if we were to use census method. That would mean every single person or item is included in the study. Of course the census could be limited to a particular geographical area. On the contrary, when we do cross sectional analysis in social sciences, we take out a small sample from out of a large population in a way that the constituents of the sample represent the characteristics of the population being studied. I believe that there is therefore, adequate justification to keep these two concepts separate at least until academicians provide alternative terminologies that do not appear to mean the same.

Definition

I am just a little unclear as to why the Wikipedia definition is only relating to epidemiology. Cross-sectionals are done in mostly the social sciences and are not specific to any one field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.27.177.29 (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

This page should be included in the "Economics portal", why is it in Medicin?

Wikipedia is funny.

Guilherme d (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Social sciences may have more papers being published but it still doesn't discount the fact that cross-sectionals are an integral part of epidemiology, and one of the most common types of epidemiological studies. Either this article can be sectioned off into the two disciplines to show differences/examples, or are you suggesting we make two articles if the differences are large enough to warrant it? --Waqqashanafi (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

They're certainly a common study type in medicine, maybe the most common. JuanTamad (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Comparison to case-control studies

The article currently says: "Unlike case-control studies, they can be used to describe absolute risks and not only relative risks." This implies to me that case-control studies can be used to describe relative risk, but I believe this is false (they can find odds ratios, and cohort studies can find relative risks). Either I'm factually wrong or I'm the only one confused by the wording, or I believe this sentence needs to be re-worded. I'm just not sure enough to make the edit myself. 69.116.211.248 (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, and I juts made the correction (while also adding two references to the use of RR with cross sectional studies). Thanks for writing. Tal Galili (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Cross-sectional studies descriptive or analytical or both?

I think the sentence that states that "cross-sectional studies are descriptive" is not quite true because they are sometimes described as analytical as defined here: (http://cebm.net/study-designs/ ), where it also states that descriptive studies "sometimes include analytic work" and here ((http://www.nature.com/ebd/journal/v7/n1/full/6400375a.html) where they're called descriptive but include analysis. Google “observational study design inforgraphs” and you’ll see different classification trees. Cross-sectional studies include surveys, which are usually purely descriptive it seems. So, although sometimes classified as a descriptive study, they may have analytical features and then might be classified or described as an analytical cross-sectional study. So definitions vary and the terms are used differently. If there's quantification of risk (hypothesis testing) then seems to me analytical is a better term. And, another thing, sometimes cross-sectional studies (analytical ones) are confused with case-control studies because they have cases and controls. If there's a description of cases and controls, but statistics are only comparisons then maybe that should be considered descriptive. In the STROBE statement, descriptive data in observational studies should not include inferential statistical tests (P values, confidence intervals, standard errors) according to the STROBE guideline. This applies in medicine and epidemiology. ~ juanTamad (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Mohamed's comment on this article

Dr. Mohamed has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The identification of cross-sectional analysis needs further elaborations, specially that we can use other tools than regression in the analysis. Regression provides coefficients (beta) values for the estimations. That is for presenting a causative assessments. However, other tools also are utilized in cross-section analysis. In medical studies sometimes they make the mistake of using quantitative methods for qualitative data which is a gross scientific mistake and can be misleading.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Mohamed has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Mohamed, Issam A.W., 2011. "Empirical Analysis of Field Data on HIV/AIDS Epidemic in Khartoum State, Sudan," MPRA Paper 31783, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not correct. Regression is a very general statistical tool for estimating relationships between one or more independent variables and an outcome and can be used for causal inference or pure description of associations (differences/trends). The study design and lots of other considerations and assumptions determine whether those distinct interpretations are valid/robust or not, but regression is absolutely not "just" for "causative assessments". And avoid the Table 2 fallacy (https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/177/4/292/147738)! 79.76.63.170 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Bai's comment on this article

Dr. Bai has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

it is better to change the following

"such as serial correlation of residuals"

into

"such as serial correlation of the error terms in a regression model"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Bai has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Ando, Tomohiro & Bai, Jushan, 2014. "A simple new test for slope homogeneity in panel data models with interactive effects," MPRA Paper 60795, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cross-sectional study. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100228065153/http://www.vet.cornell.edu:80/imaging/tutorial/4studydesigns/crosssectional.html to http://www.vet.cornell.edu/imaging/tutorial/4studydesigns/crosssectional.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Overall article quality

This is a very low quality article that is littered with factual mistakes and misunderstandings. The almost total lack of references highlights the fact that this has just been written with little consideration for facts. Sorry I am not a wikipedia editor but hopefully this comment at least highlights the fact that people should ignore this article completely and instead seek out a decent epidemiology textbook or well respected paper/webpage. 79.76.63.170 (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)