Skip to main content
WoMWeb of Medicine
SearchGraphHistory
Epidemiology›Condition·Updated Jul 11, 2026·v1

Case-Control Study Design

Case-control studies are observational designs that sample by outcome and retrospectively measure exposure. They are efficient for rare outcomes and long-latency diseases, producing odds ratios that approximate relative risk. Validity depends on proper control selection, blinding of exposure assessment, and appropriate analytic methods (conditional/unconditional logistic regression). Modern variants (nested, test-negative) enhance applicability. Key biases include selection, recall, and sparse-data bias. The design has generated critical clinical insights (clopidogrel-PPI warning, vaccine effectiveness, risk scores) but should not be used for diagnostic accuracy studies.

High Evidence60 references·1,807 words·8 min read·v1
case-control studyobservational epidemiologyodds ratiostudy designtest-negative designnested case-control

Quick Reference

RxDrug of choiceNot applicable (study design, not a drug)
AltAlternativesNested case-control (preserves temporality); test-negative design (vaccine effectiveness); case-cohort (absolute risk estimation)
⊘AvoidDiagnostic accuracy studies (case-control design overestimates accuracy; use prospective cohort instead)
DxTest of choiceOdds ratio from logistic regression (conditional for matched designs, unconditional with time adjustment for sparse data)
ScKey scoreNewcastle-Ottawa Scale (assesses selection, comparability, exposure ascertainment)
→When to referContact a biostatistician for complex designs (nested with competing risks, two-phase sampling, or high-dimensional exposure extraction via NLP)
Case-control studies are efficient for rare outcomes and long-latency diseases, providing OR estimates that can guide clinical decisions when controls are properly selected and biases are minimized. The design is not inherently inferior to a cohort; exposure assessment rigor matters more than study architecture.
Case-control studies are observational designs that select subjects based on outcome status and retrospectively compare exposures. They are efficient for rare outcomes and long latency periods, but vulnerable to selection and recall bias. Key measures include odds ratios, which approximate relative risk under certain conditions. This summary covers definitions, core concepts, metrics, methods, biases, landmark studies, and clinical applications.

Overview and Recommendations

Background

  • •A case-control study defines groups by outcome -- individuals with the disease (cases) and a sample of those without (controls) -- then retrospectively compares prior exposure frequency. This backward sampling confers remarkable efficiency: for a rare outcome (e.g., a specific birth defect, incidence <1 per 1,000) or one with a long latency (e.g., cancer after environmental exposure), a cohort would require impractically large sample sizes and decades of follow-up, whereas a case-control design can produce valid estimates with a fraction of the subjects.
  • •The central measure is the (OR): the odds of exposure among cases divided by the odds among controls. An OR of 1.0 indicates no association; <1.0 suggests a protective effect (e.g., G6PD deficiency reduces vivax malaria odds by 82%, AOR 0.18); >1.0 indicates increased risk (e.g., concomitant PPI with clopidogrel increases ACS odds by 32%, AOR 1.32). Modern methods -- logistic regression, Mantel-Haenszel estimation -- allow direct OR estimation without the historical 'rare disease assumption' (Flanders showed this restriction is unnecessary).
  • •The design has three major variants: classic (population- or hospital-based), nested (embedded within a defined cohort, preserving temporality), and test-negative (cases = test-positive symptomatic patients; controls = test-negative symptomatic patients). The test-negative variant has become the gold standard for rapid vaccine effectiveness monitoring because it controls for healthcare-seeking behavior; in the TyVAC Bangladesh trial, its estimate (88%) nearly perfectly matched the cluster-RCT result (89%).
  • •Case-control studies are hypothesis-testing when derived from a specific a priori question but can also be hypothesis-generating in exploratory analyses. They appear across all disciplines: neurological surgery (rare postoperative complications), infectious diseases (Nipah virus vaccine feasibility -- 7 years vs 516 years for ring vaccination), and pharmacoepidemiology (clopidogrel-PPI interaction that changed FDA labeling).
  • •The method's efficiency for rare outcomes is its paramount strength, but it cannot directly measure incidence or risk; it estimates association, not causation. Causal claims require strong supporting evidence from other study types and meticulous handling of and .

Evaluation

  • •Suspect a case-control design is appropriate when the outcome is rare (prevalence <10% in the source population) or has a long latency; when a cohort study would be prohibitively expensive or time-consuming; or when detailed retrospective exposure data are needed (e.g., lifetime occupational history for night-shift work).
  • •Ask about the source population: were cases drawn from a defined geographic area, hospital, or registry? Controls must come from the same population that gave rise to the cases -- otherwise selection bias compromises validity. For hospital-based studies, ensure the control condition does not share an exposure with the disease (e.g., avoid using COPD patients as controls for a lung cancer study).
  • •Examine how controls were selected: population-based (random-digit dialing, registries) is ideal; hospital-based is convenient but risky; incidence density sampling (controls selected from the risk set at the time each case occurs) allows direct rate ratio estimation and is preferred for time-varying exposures.
  • •Assess the matching strategy: matching on confounders (age, sex, calendar time) controls for them by design, but overmatching (matching on an intermediate variable) attenuates true associations. The optimal number of controls per matched set can be calculated as √(cost_case/cost_control) to minimize total study cost for a fixed power; practical ratios rarely exceed 4:1.
  • •Review exposure ascertainment: was it blinded to case-control status? Blinding prevents recall bias; if blinding is impossible (e.g., retrospective interview), objective records (EMR, employment logs) should supplement self-report. Differential misclassification that overestimates OR is a major threat.
  • •Order the appropriate analytic method: conditional logistic regression (CLR) is standard for matched data, but it can produce sparse-data bias when the number of cases per matched set is small. Alternative: unconditional logistic regression with adjustment for time in quintiles yields comparable results with less bias. For nested designs, weighted likelihood methods can estimate both relative and absolute risks in competing-risks settings.
  • •Check for the rare disease assumption: an OR approximates a risk ratio when the outcome prevalence is <10%; otherwise the OR must be interpreted cautiously as overestimating the risk ratio. Modern methods have relaxed this requirement, but the distinction still matters for clinical interpretation.
  • •Evaluate model performance metrics: a well-calibrated risk score (e.g., Dialysis Dementia Risk Score with C-statistic 0.71 and Hosmer-Lemeshow p=0.18) provides actionable cutoffs (e.g., score ≥50 → three-fold increased dementia risk). Internal validation alone is insufficient; external validation in an independent population is critical (e.g., SA-AKI nomogram AUC dropped from 0.92 training to 0.85 validation).
  • •Also consider the test-negative variant: cases are test-positive symptomatic patients, controls are test-negative symptomatic patients. This design mitigates healthcare-seeking and misclassification biases. The key metric is vaccine effectiveness = 1 - OR. Validation against cohort designs (Qatar COVID: 97% protection for Alpha) and RCTs (TyVAC: 88% vs 89%) confirms its robustness.
  • •For genetic case-control studies, assess population stratification: use bounding formulas (Lee and Wang) to gauge whether residual confounding by ancestry could explain the observed OR. Use genomic control or family-based designs when stratification is suspected.

Management

  • •Select population-based controls whenever possible; if hospital-based controls are used, ensure the control condition is unrelated to the exposure of interest. For rare outcomes, incidence density sampling is the first-line approach.
  • •Match on strong confounders (age, sex, calendar time) but avoid overmatching on intermediates. The optimal number of controls per case = √(cost_case/cost_control); if costs are equal, use 1:1 matching for simplicity, but 2:1 or 4:1 may increase precision marginally.
  • •Use unconditional logistic regression with time adjustment as an alternative to conditional logistic regression when data are sparse (small number of cases per matched set). This approach produces comparable results without sparse-data bias.
  • •For nested case-control studies, apply weighted likelihood methods to estimate absolute risks (cause-specific hazard ratios and cumulative incidence functions). Augment both competing-risks cases and controls to avoid bias in CIFs - standard nested case-control analysis yields biased CIFs for competing events.
  • •In test-negative designs, calculate vaccine effectiveness as 1 - OR from a logistic regression model adjusted for calendar time and age. Misclassification of prior infection status underestimates PEₛ, but the bias is considerable only when >50% of the population has been ever infected.
  • •Monitor for selection bias by comparing the distribution of key covariates between cases and controls. Use sensitivity analyses (e.g., E-value) to assess how strong an unmeasured confounder would need to be to explain away the observed association.
  • •Escalate analytical complexity when needed: use LASSO regression for high-dimensional variable selection (e.g., 347 variables for suicide risk prediction), natural language processing for exposure extraction from EMRs, and mediation analysis to decompose total effects into direct and indirect components.
  • •Avoid using a case-control design for diagnostic accuracy studies: it overestimates test performance (verification bias). Use a prospective cohort design instead. If unavoidable, report sensitivity and specificity with confidence intervals and acknowledge the bias.
  • •When to refer: if the study involves complex sampling (e.g., nested case-control with competing risks, or two-phase sampling for continuous outcomes), consult a biostatistician experienced in these designs. Early involvement of a methodologist reduces design flaws.
  • •What NOT to do: do not match on an intermediate variable (e.g., matching on blood pressure when studying an antihypertensive-disease association). Do not combine cases and controls from different source populations without careful adjustment. Do not claim causation from a single case-control study; require replication and supporting evidence.
  • •Discharge criteria for study quality: a trustworthy case-control study should have (1) controls from the same source population, (2) blinded or objective exposure ascertainment, (3) appropriate matching and adjustment for confounders, (4) sensitivity analyses for unmeasured confounding, and (5) external validation if a risk score is derived.
  • •For clinical application: use risk scores derived from case-control studies (e.g., DDRS cutoff 50 points → three-fold dementia risk; G6PD deficiency AOR 0.18 → protection against vivax malaria) to inform individual patient decisions, but remain aware that ORs may overestimate relative risk when the outcome is common.

Board Review — High Yield

  • •Odds ratio (OR), the measure of association in a case-control study; compares odds of exposure among cases to odds among controls. An OR of 1.0 = no association; <1.0 = protective; >1.0 = risk.
  • •Rare disease assumption, historically needed for OR to approximate risk ratio, but modern methods (logistic regression, Mantel-Haenszel) remove this restriction.
  • •Incidence density sampling, controls selected from the risk set at the time each case occurs; allows direct estimation of rate ratios without rare disease assumption.
  • •Nested case-control design, cases and controls sampled from a defined cohort; preserves temporality and reduces cost; can estimate absolute risks with weighted methods.
  • •Test-negative design, cases are test-positive symptomatic patients, controls are test-negative symptomatic patients; used for vaccine effectiveness (VE = 1 - OR); controls for healthcare-seeking behavior.
  • •Selection bias, the most critical threat; arises when controls do not represent the source population of cases. Mitigation: population-based sampling or incidence density sampling.
  • •Sparse data bias, biased ORs from conditional logistic regression when strata have few events; use bias-reduction methods or unconditional logistic regression with time adjustment.
  • •Overmatching, matching on an intermediate variable attenuates true associations; avoid matching on variables that are part of the causal pathway.
  • •Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, quality assessment tool for case-control studies; rates selection, comparability, and exposure ascertainment.
  • •Clopidogrel-PPI interaction, landmark nested case-control study (Ho 2009) found AOR 1.32 for death/rehospitalization, leading to FDA warning and practice change.

Deep Dive — Evidence Details

References

  1. [1]

    Kicielinski KP. “Case-Control Study Design in Neurological Surgery.” World neurosurgery (2022). PMID: 35505544 ↗

    L5RCTCited in: Definition & Scope, Application & Implementation
  2. [2]

    Paap E, Verbeek ALM, Puliti D et al.. “Breast cancer screening case-control study design: impact on breast cancer mortality.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2010). PMID: 20924073 ↗

    L5SR_OBSCited in: Definition & Scope
  3. [3]

    Caramaschi D, Jungius J, Page CM et al.. “Association of medically assisted reproduction with offspring cord blood DNA methylation across cohorts.” Human reproduction (Oxford, England) (2021). PMID: 34136910 ↗

    L2SR_OBSCited in: Definition & Scope, Landmark Studies, Programs & Real-world Examples
  4. [4]

    Dyda A, King C, Dey A et al.. “A systematic review of studies that measure parental vaccine attitudes and beliefs in childhood vaccination.” BMC public health (2020). PMID: 32807124 ↗

    L2SR_OBSCited in: Definition & Scope
  5. [5]

    Morgan AD, Sharma C, Rothnie KJ et al.. “Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the risk of stroke: a systematic review protocol.” BMJ open (2016). PMID: 27899397 ↗

    L5SR_OBSCited in: Definition & Scope
  6. [6]

    Flanders WD. “Invited Commentary: Two-Phase, Generalized Case-Control Designs for Quantitative Longitudinal Outcomes and Evolution of the Case-Control Study.” American journal of epidemiology (2020). PMID: 31566676 ↗

    L5CASE_CONTROLCited in: Core Concepts & Conceptual Framework, Methods & Approaches, Landmark Studies, Programs & Real-world Examples
  7. [7]

    Zelic R, Zugna D, Bottai M et al.. “Estimation of Relative and Absolute Risks in a Competing-Risks Setting Using a Nested Case-Control Study Design: Example From the ProMort Study.” American journal of epidemiology (2019). PMID: 30976789 ↗

    L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Core Concepts & Conceptual Framework, Key Measures & Metrics, Methods & Approaches, Strengths, Limitations, Biases & Pitfalls
  8. [8]

    Ayoub HH, Tomy M, Chemaitelly H et al.. “Estimating protection afforded by prior infection in preventing reinfection: applying the test-negative study design.” American journal of epidemiology (2024). PMID: 38061757 ↗

    L5OTHERCited in: Core Concepts & Conceptual Framework, Methods & Approaches, Strengths, Limitations, Biases & Pitfalls, Landmark Studies, Programs & Real-world Examples
  9. [9]

    Getu F, Alemayehu E, Tesfaye A et al.. “The evaluation of prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time among diabetic and healthy controls in Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis.” Frontiers in medicine (2024). PMID: 39712180 ↗

    L2SR_OBSCited in: Core Concepts & Conceptual Framework, Evidence, Validation & Evaluation, Strengths, Limitations, Biases & Pitfalls
  10. [10]

    Ma J, Chen H, Sun J et al.. “Efficient analysis of drug interactions in liver injury: a retrospective study leveraging natural language processing and machine learning.” BMC medical research methodology (2024). PMID: 39707270 ↗

    L2COHORTCited in: Core Concepts & Conceptual Framework, Key Measures & Metrics, Controversies & Future Directions
  11. [11]

    Golic M, Aiff H, Attman PO et al.. “Lifetime risk of severe kidney disease in lithium-treated patients: a retrospective study.” International journal of bipolar disorders (2023). PMID: 38070020 ↗

    L2COHORTCited in: Core Concepts & Conceptual Framework
  12. [12]

    Keyimu K, Abulizi P, Rouzhahong J et al.. “Nomogram analysis of factors associated with prognosis in patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury: a case-control study based on LASSO regression.” Frontiers in medicine (2026). PMID: 42328551 ↗

    L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Core Concepts & Conceptual Framework, Key Measures & Metrics, Methods & Approaches, Evidence, Validation & Evaluation
  13. [13]

    Nagashima Y, Hisaoka T, Sato T et al.. “Associated factors for exertional heat exhaustion-related symptoms among amateur golfers in Japan: A retrospective case-control study.” Temperature (Austin, Tex.) (2025). PMID: 40926793 ↗

    L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Core Concepts & Conceptual Framework, Key Measures & Metrics
  14. [14]

    de Oliveira THA, Anderson LA, Craig SG et al.. “Infectious agents and progression from Barrett's oesophagus to oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a nested case-control study.” British journal of cancer (2025). PMID: 40200065 ↗

    L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Core Concepts & Conceptual Framework
  15. [15]

    Cheung YB, Ma X, Lam KF et al.. “Bias control in the analysis of case-control studies with incidence density sampling.” International journal of epidemiology (2019). PMID: 31209487 ↗

    L5CASE_CONTROLCited in: Key Measures & Metrics, Methods & Approaches, Evidence, Validation & Evaluation, Strengths, Limitations, Biases & Pitfalls
  16. [16]

    Doria-Rose VP, Kamineni A, Barrett MJ et al.. “Case-Control Studies of the Efficacy of Screening Tests That Seek to Prevent Cancer Incidence: Results of an Approach That Utilizes Administrative Claims Data That Do Not Provide Information Regarding Test Indication.” American journal of epidemiology (2019). PMID: 30698635 ↗

    L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Key Measures & Metrics, Methods & Approaches
  17. [17]

    Alberg AJ, Moorman PG, Crankshaw S et al.. “Socioeconomic Status in Relation to the Risk of Ovarian Cancer in African-American Women: A Population-Based Case-Control Study.” American journal of epidemiology (2016). PMID: 27492896 ↗

    L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Key Measures & Metrics, Methods & Approaches
  18. [18]

    Morabia A. “Snippets from the past: is Flint, Michigan, the birthplace of the case-control study?” American journal of epidemiology (2013). PMID: 24064743 ↗

    L5CASE_CONTROLCited in: Key Measures & Metrics, Methods & Approaches
  19. [19]

    Ennis S, Jomary C, Mullins R et al.. “Association between the SERPING1 gene and age-related macular degeneration: a two-stage case-control study.” Lancet (London, England) (2008). PMID: 18842294 ↗

    L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Key Measures & Metrics, Methods & Approaches
  20. [20]

    Vanderweele TJ, Vansteelandt S. “Odds ratios for mediation analysis for a dichotomous outcome.” American journal of epidemiology (2010). PMID: 21036955 ↗

    L5OTHERCited in: Key Measures & Metrics
  21. [21]

    Feng S, Zhang Y, Khanam F et al.. “The validity of test-negative design for assessment of typhoid conjugate vaccine protection: comparison of estimates by different study designs using data from a cluster-randomised controlled trial.” The Lancet. Global health (2025). PMID: 40252689 ↗

    L2RCTCited in: Key Measures & Metrics, Strengths, Limitations, Biases & Pitfalls, Landmark Studies, Programs & Real-world Examples
  22. [22]

    Ho PM, Maddox TM, Wang L et al.. “Risk of adverse outcomes associated with concomitant use of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors following acute coronary syndrome.” JAMA (2009). PMID: 19258584 ↗

    L2OTHERCited in: Key Measures & Metrics, Methods & Approaches, Landmark Studies, Programs & Real-world Examples
  23. [23]

    Chemaitelly H, Tang P, Hasan MR et al.. “Waning of BNT162b2 Vaccine Protection against SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Qatar.” The New England journal of medicine (2021). PMID: 34614327 ↗

    L3OTHERCited in: Key Measures & Metrics, Methods & Approaches
  24. [24]

    Jain S, Gowda C, Verma U et al.. “Evaluation of lower urinary tract symptoms in postpartum women: A nested case-control study.” International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (2026). PMID: 41588849 ↗

    L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Key Measures & Metrics, Methods & Approaches, Evidence, Validation & Evaluation
  25. [25]

    Girma K, Tefera EG, Abdissa B. “Determinants of Birth Asphyxia Among Neonates in Selected Hospitals of Ethiopia: A Multi-site Unmatched Case-Control Study.” BMC pregnancy and childbirth (2025). PMID: 41413470 ↗

    L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Key Measures & Metrics, Methods & Approaches
  26. [26]

    Zhang J, He JQ. “ULK1 gene polymorphisms and severe tuberculosis in the Chinese Han population: a case-control study.” Frontiers in medicine (2025). PMID: 40995090 ↗

    L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Key Measures & Metrics, Methods & Approaches
  27. [27]

    Sandoval GJ, Bebu I, Lachin JM. “Cost-Efficient Multiply Matched Case-Control Study Designs.” American journal of epidemiology (2022). PMID: 35916344 ↗

    L5CASE_CONTROLCited in: Methods & Approaches, Application & Implementation
  28. [28]

    Papantoniou K, Hansen J. “Cohort Studies Versus Case-Control Studies on Night-Shift Work and Cancer Risk: The Importance of Exposure Assessment.” American journal of epidemiology (2024). PMID: 38012106 ↗

    L5CASE_CONTROLCited in: Methods & Approaches, Strengths, Limitations, Biases & Pitfalls, Landmark Studies, Programs & Real-world Examples, Controversies & Future Directions
  29. [29]

    Tourassi G, Yoon HJ, Xu S et al.. “The utility of web mining for epidemiological research: studying the association between parity and cancer risk.” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA (2015). PMID: 26615183 ↗

    L2OTHERCited in: Methods & Approaches
  30. [30]

    Li W, Shi S, Yu Y et al.. “Platelet mitochondrial DNA methylation mediates the association of bisphenol, phthalate, and paraben exposures with type 2 diabetes mellitus: An exploratory nested case-control study.” Ecotoxicology and environmental safety (2026). PMID: 41722352 ↗

    L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Methods & Approaches
  31. [31]

    Teklu MW, Nigusse AT. “Rubella outbreak investigation in Adigrat town of Eastern Tigray, Northern Ethiopia, 2024: case-control study design.” BMC public health (2026). PMID: 41555289 ↗

    L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Methods & Approaches
  32. [32]

    Abate AY, Angaw DA, Andargie MF et al.. “Risk factors for Streptococcus pyogenes skin infections during an outbreak in Ethiopia: a case-control study.” BMC infectious diseases (2025). PMID: 41013360 ↗

    L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Methods & Approaches
  33. [33]

    Wang M, Yang RZ, Gu W et al.. “Comparing vacuum-assisted closure against conventional approach in severe deep neck infection: A retrospective case-control study.” World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery (2024). PMID: 40932928 ↗

    L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Methods & Approaches
  34. [34]

    Nikolay B, Ribeiro Dos Santos G, Lipsitch M et al.. “Assessing the feasibility of Nipah vaccine efficacy trials based on previous outbreaks in Bangladesh.” Vaccine (2021). PMID: 34426025 ↗

    L5RCTCited in: Application & Implementation, Controversies & Future Directions
  35. [35]

    Rove KO, Strine AC, Wilcox DT et al.. “Design and development of the Pediatric Urology Recovery After Surgery Endeavor (PURSUE) multicentre pilot and exploratory study.” BMJ open (2020). PMID: 33234633 ↗

    L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Application & Implementation
  36. [36]

    Wang J, Gholi Zadeh Kharrat F, Pelletier JF et al.. “A case-control study on predicting population risk of suicide using health administrative data: a research protocol.” BMJ open (2023). PMID: 36849211 ↗

    L5CASE_CONTROLCited in: Application & Implementation, Controversies & Future Directions
  37. [37]

    Ahiawodzi PD, Kelly K, Massengill A et al.. “Risk factors for sepsis morbidity in a rural hospital population: A case-control study.” American journal of infection control (2018). PMID: 29609853 ↗

    L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Application & Implementation
  38. [38]

    Ling TC, Chang CC, Li CY et al.. “Development and validation of the dialysis dementia risk score: A retrospective, population-based, nested case-control study.” European journal of neurology (2021). PMID: 34561939 ↗

    L3RCTCited in: Evidence, Validation & Evaluation, Clinical & Practical Relevance
  39. [39]

    Juge PA, Lee JS, Lau J et al.. “Methotrexate and rheumatoid arthritis associated interstitial lung disease.” The European respiratory journal (2021). PMID: 32646919 ↗

    L3SR_OBSCited in: Evidence, Validation & Evaluation
  40. [40]

    Bannon BL, Lucier M, Fagerlin A et al.. “Evaluation of the intensive outpatient clinic: study protocol for a prospective study of high-cost, high-need patients in the University of Utah Health system.” BMJ open (2019). PMID: 30782742 ↗

    L5COHORTCited in: Evidence, Validation & Evaluation
  41. [41]

    Krishnamurthy G, Nguyen PT, Tran BN et al.. “Genomic variation associated with cardiovascular disease progression following preeclampsia: a systematic review.” Frontiers in epidemiology (2023). PMID: 38455895 ↗

    L2SR_OBSCited in: Evidence, Validation & Evaluation
  42. [42]

    Lee WC, Wang LY. “Simple formulas for gauging the potential impacts of population stratification bias.” American journal of epidemiology (2007). PMID: 17881384 ↗

    L5OTHERCited in: Strengths, Limitations, Biases & Pitfalls
  43. [43]

    Chiavarini M, De Socio B, Giacchetta I et al.. “Overweight and Obesity in Adult Birth by Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.” Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP (Unknown). PMID: 36715592 ↗

    L2SR_OBSCited in: Strengths, Limitations, Biases & Pitfalls
  44. [44]

    Teshome A, Adane A, Girma B et al.. “The Impact of Vitamin D Level on COVID-19 Infection: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Frontiers in public health (2021). PMID: 33748066 ↗

    L2SR_OBSCited in: Strengths, Limitations, Biases & Pitfalls
  45. [45]

    Dragioti E, Solmi M, Favaro A et al.. “Association of Antidepressant Use With Adverse Health Outcomes: A Systematic Umbrella Review.” JAMA psychiatry (2019). PMID: 31577342 ↗

    L5SR_OBSCited in: Strengths, Limitations, Biases & Pitfalls
  46. [46]

    Beynon R, Elwenspoek MMC, Sheppard A et al.. “The utility of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks in the management of patients with lumbar radiculopathy: a systematic review.” BMJ open (2019). PMID: 31005925 ↗

    L5SR_OBSCited in: Strengths, Limitations, Biases & Pitfalls
  47. [47]

    van der Pol CB, Lim CS, Sirlin CB et al.. “Accuracy of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System in Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Image Analysis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma or Overall Malignancy-A Systematic Review.” Gastroenterology (2018). PMID: 30445016 ↗

    L5SR_OBSCited in: Strengths, Limitations, Biases & Pitfalls
  48. [48]

    Byrnes J, Elliott T, Vale MJ et al.. “Coaching Patients Saves Lives and Money.” The American journal of medicine (2017). PMID: 29106978 ↗

    L2RCTCited in: Landmark Studies, Programs & Real-world Examples
  49. [49]

    Shahzad M, Andrews SC, Ul-Haq Z. “Exploring the role of Microbiome in Susceptibility, Treatment Response and Outcome among Tuberculosis Patients from Pakistan: study protocol for a prospective cohort study (Micro-STOP).” BMJ open (2022). PMID: 35672071 ↗

    L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Landmark Studies, Programs & Real-world Examples
  50. [50]

    Gad KT, Johansen C, Duun-Henriksen AK et al.. “Socioeconomic Differences in Referral to Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials: A Danish Matched Cancer Case-Control Study.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2019). PMID: 30860947 ↗

    L3TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Landmark Studies, Programs & Real-world Examples
  51. [51]

    Jin G, Lv J, Yang M et al.. “Genetic risk, incident gastric cancer, and healthy lifestyle: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies and prospective cohort study.” The Lancet. Oncology (2020). PMID: 33002439 ↗

    L3SR_OBSCited in: Landmark Studies, Programs & Real-world Examples
  52. [52]

    Wojcik S, Bernatsky S, Platt RW et al.. “Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Children Born to Mothers With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Literature Review.” Arthritis care & research (2017). PMID: 28319657 ↗

    L2SR_OBSCited in: Landmark Studies, Programs & Real-world Examples
  53. [53]

    Ren HG, Luu HN, Cai H et al.. “Oral health and risk of colorectal cancer: results from three cohort studies and a meta-analysis.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2016). PMID: 27217540 ↗

    L3SR_OBSCited in: Landmark Studies, Programs & Real-world Examples
  54. [54]

    Bhutada AM, Davis TM, Garand KL. “Electrophysiological Measures of Swallowing Functions: A Systematic Review.” Dysphagia (2022). PMID: 35218413 ↗

    L2SR_OBSCited in: Clinical & Practical Relevance
  55. [55]

    Oddone F, Lucenteforte E, Michelessi M et al.. “Macular versus Retinal Nerve Fiber Layer Parameters for Diagnosing Manifest Glaucoma: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.” Ophthalmology (2016). PMID: 26891880 ↗

    L3SR_OBSCited in: Clinical & Practical Relevance
  56. [56]

    Sen I, Stephen E, Agarwal S et al.. “Analytical performance of a point-of-care device in monitoring patients on oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists.” Phlebology (2015). PMID: 26415605 ↗

    L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Clinical & Practical Relevance
  57. [57]

    Jenkins B, Calder PC, Marino LV. “A systematic review of the definitions and prevalence of feeding intolerance in critically ill adults.” Clinical nutrition ESPEN (2022). PMID: 35623881 ↗

    L2SR_OBSCited in: Clinical & Practical Relevance
  58. [58]

    Leslie T, Briceño M, Mayan I et al.. “The impact of phenotypic and genotypic G6PD deficiency on risk of plasmodium vivax infection: a case-control study amongst Afghan refugees in Pakistan.” PLoS medicine (2010). PMID: 20520804 ↗

    L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Clinical & Practical Relevance
  59. [59]

    Ubillos I, Ayestaran A, Nhabomba AJ et al.. “Baseline exposure, antibody subclass, and hepatitis B response differentially affect malaria protective immunity following RTS,S/AS01E vaccination in African children.” BMC medicine (2018). PMID: 30376866 ↗

    L1RCTCited in: Controversies & Future Directions
  60. [60]

    Xavier-Carvalho C, Gibson G, Brasil P et al.. “Single nucleotide polymorphisms in candidate genes and dengue severity in children: a case-control, functional and meta-analysis study.” Infection, genetics and evolution : journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases (2013). PMID: 24016730 ↗

    L3SR_OBSCited in: Controversies & Future Directions

Revision History

All updates applied to this page

Loading revisions…