Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Case–Control Study

Wacholder, Sholom, Hartge, Patricia·2005·Encyclopedia of Biostatistics
DOI 10.1002/0470011815.b2a03023
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We review design options for case–control studies and considerations for determining whether a case–control or cohort study is more appropriate for a given purpose. One issue is exposure data quality, which may be poorer in a case–control study than in a cohort study, and subject to differential error (recall bias). This must be weighed against the cost efficiencies and other advantages of the case–control design. We describe case and control selection, including the use of hospital‐based controls (secondary base studies) in which controls are not sampled from the population base that gave rise to cases. Other design options, including matching and the use of two‐phase studies are described, as well as approaches to analysis. It is pointed out that not only odds ratios, but also absolute risks, are estimable from population‐based case–control studies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/0470011815.b2a03023

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Cited by

See all 274

Metadata

Authors
Wacholder, S., & Hartge, P.
Venue
Encyclopedia of Biostatistics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-02-15
DOI
10.1002/0470011815.b2a03023
OpenAlex
W1506261942
Cited by
274
References
34
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Case–Control Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/0470011815.b2a03023
The paper
Wacholder, S., & Hartge, P. (2005). Case–Control Study. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470011815.b2a03023

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.