Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of sampling methods, validity and reliability of instruments, and statistical methods used in domestic publications of health care and hospital administration. Methods: Five-years health care and hospital administration publications in "Hospital", "Chinese Journal of Public health", "Public Health" (n=109) were evaluated. Abstractors were trained and descriptive statistic was used. Results: Descriptive or analytical study was most common (80%), followed by quasi-experiments (17%) and simulation study (3%). Purposive or convenient method was primarily used to obtain the study sample (42.5%). There were some problems such as failure to mention (4.6%) or non utilization (8%) of multiple comparisons in a significant one-way ANOVA, lack of specific methods used for correlation coefficients (66.7%), non-examination of statistical assumptions in multiple linear regression (100%), confusion between significant level and p-values (10.4%). About on e-forth of the instruments developed by the researchers did not show the whole validity was primarily used for evaluation of validity. Reliability test for about half of the instruments were not carried out. Conclusions: Our evaluation on domestic health care and hospital management publications suggested that representative of the sample may be a problem in descriptive or analytical studies. Some statistical methods used were not stringent. Expert validity was primarily used in evaluation of validity of s tudy. About half of the instruments reliability tests were not performed.