Posted on 6th December 2017 by Show
Tutorials and Fundamentals  IntroductionCase-control and cohort studies are observational studies that lie near the middle of the hierarchy of evidence. These types of studies, along with randomised controlled trials, constitute analytical studies, whereas case reports and case series define descriptive studies (1). Although these studies are not ranked as highly as randomised controlled trials, they can provide strong evidence if designed appropriately. Case-control studiesCase-control studies are retrospective. They clearly define two groups at the start: one with the outcome/disease and one without the outcome/disease. They look back to assess whether there is a statistically significant difference in the rates of exposure to a defined risk factor between the groups. See Figure 1 for a pictorial representation of a case-control study design. This can suggest associations between the risk factor and development of the disease in question, although no definitive causality can be drawn. The main outcome measure in case-control studies is odds ratio (OR). Figure 1. Case-control study design. Cases should be selected based on objective inclusion and exclusion criteria from a reliable source such as a disease registry. An inherent issue with selecting cases is that a certain proportion of those with the disease would not have a formal diagnosis, may not present for medical care, may be misdiagnosed or may have died before getting a diagnosis. Regardless of how the cases are selected, they should be representative of the broader disease population that you are investigating to ensure generalisability. Case-control studies should include two groups that are identical EXCEPT for their outcome / disease status. As such, controls should also be selected carefully. It is possible to match controls to the cases selected on the basis of various factors (e.g. age, sex) to ensure these do not confound the study results. It may even increase statistical power and study precision by choosing up to three or four controls per case (2). Case-controls can provide fast results and they are cheaper to perform than most other studies. The fact that the analysis is retrospective, allows rare diseases or diseases with long latency periods to be investigated. Furthermore, you can assess multiple exposures to get a better understanding of possible risk factors for the defined outcome / disease. Nevertheless, as case-controls are retrospective, they are more prone to bias. One of the main examples is recall bias. Often case-control studies require the participants to self-report their exposure to a certain factor. Recall bias is the systematic difference in how the two groups may recall past events e.g. in a study investigating stillbirth, a mother who experienced this may recall the possible contributing factors a lot more vividly than a mother who had a healthy birth. A summary of the pros and cons of case-control studies are provided in Table 1. Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of case-control studies. Cohort studiesCohort studies can be retrospective or prospective. Retrospective cohort studies are NOT the same as case-control studies. In retrospective cohort studies, the exposure and outcomes have already happened. They are usually conducted on data that already exists (from prospective studies) and the exposures are defined before looking at the existing outcome data to see whether exposure to a risk factor is associated with a statistically significant difference in the outcome development rate. Prospective cohort studies are more common. People are recruited into cohort studies regardless of their exposure or outcome status. This is one of their important strengths. People are often recruited because of their geographical area or occupation, for example, and researchers can then measure and analyse a range of exposures and outcomes. The study then follows these participants for a defined period to assess the proportion that develop the outcome/disease of interest. See Figure 2 for a pictorial representation of a cohort study design. Therefore, cohort studies are good for assessing prognosis, risk factors and harm. The outcome measure in cohort studies is usually a risk ratio / relative risk (RR). Figure 2. Cohort study design. Cohort studies should include two groups that are identical EXCEPT for their exposure status. As a result, both exposed and unexposed groups should be recruited from the same source population. Another important consideration is attrition. If a significant number of participants are not followed up (lost, death, dropped out) then this may impact the validity of the study. Not only does it decrease the study’s power, but there may be attrition bias – a significant difference between the groups of those that did not complete the study. Cohort studies can assess a range of outcomes allowing an exposure to be rigorously assessed for its impact in developing disease. Additionally, they are good for rare exposures, e.g. contact with a chemical radiation blast. Whilst cohort studies are useful, they can be expensive and time-consuming, especially if a long follow-up period is chosen or the disease itself is rare or has a long latency. A summary of the pros and cons of cohort studies are provided in Table 2.
The Strengthening of Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Statement (STROBE)STROBE provides a checklist of important steps for conducting these types of studies, as well as acting as best-practice reporting guidelines (3). Both case-control and cohort studies are observational, with varying advantages and disadvantages. However, the most important factor to the quality of evidence these studies provide, is their methodological quality. References
Tags:Which study design is best for incidence of disease?Incidence case–control studies. Incidence studies are usually the preferred approach to studying the causes of disease, because they use all of the available information on the source population over the risk period.
What study design selects participants based on their exposure status?Cohort design is a type of nonexperimental or observational study design. In a cohort study, the participants do not have the outcome of interest to begin with. They are selected based on the exposure status of the individual. They are then followed over time to evaluate for the occurrence of the outcome of interest.
Which research design would be appropriate for investigating the cause of a disease?Cohort studies are a powerful tool for identifying the risk factors and causes of disease. Researchers can look at baseline data for people who did not initially have a disease and examine the factors that differed between those who developed the condition and those who did not.
What study design is best for assessing rare outcomes of disease?Case-control studies are particularly efficient for rare diseases because they begin by identifying a sufficient number of diseased people (or people have some "outcome" of interest) to enable you to do an analysis that tests associations.
|
In which of the following study designs are participants always selected based on disease status?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 ketiadaan Inc.
