Cited by 461Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyEthics in Clinical ResearchMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Reporting Participation in Epidemiologic Studies: A Survey of Practice

Morton, Lindsay M., Cahill, Jack, Hartge, Patricia·2006·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

Self-selection bias may threaten the internal validity of epidemiologic studies. Studies with a low level of participation are particularly vulnerable to this bias, and commentators note apparent declines in participation in recent years. The authors therefore conducted a retrospective review to survey the practice of reporting participation in epidemiologic studies, to assess changes in participation over time, and to evaluate the impact of increased biologic specimen collection on participation. The authors abstracted selected study characteristics from 355 peer-reviewed, original, analytic-epidemiology research articles published from January 1 to April 30, 2003, in 10 high-impact general epidemiology, public health, and medical journals. At least some information regarding participation was provided in 59% of cross-sectional studies, 44% of case-control studies, and 32% of cohort studies. Participation appears to have declined during 1970-2003 for all study designs. Participation declined most steeply for controls in population-based, case-control studies (-1.86% per year, 95% confidence interval: -3.03, -0.69), with steeper declines after 1990. Proportionately more studies collected biologic specimens over time, particularly for cohort and case-control study designs (p(trend) = 0.06 and 0.03, respectively), yet participation was reported separately for the biologic specimen study component in only 27% of studies. The authors conclude that epidemiologists need to address declining participation and to report participation consistently, including for biologic specimen collection.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/aje/kwj036

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A recent survey of epidemiological studies published in 10 general epidemiology, public health and medical journals found that some information regarding participation was provided in 47 of 107 case-control studies (59%), 49 of 154 cohort studies (32%), and 51 of 86 cross-sectional studies (59%).

    “A recent survey of epidemiological studies published in 10 general epidemiology, public health and medical journals found that some information regarding participation was provided in 47 of 107 case-control studies (59%), 49 of 154 cohort studies (32%), and 51 of 86 cross-sectional studies (59%) [ 137 ].”
  • There is evidence that participation in epidemiological studies may have declined in recent decades.

    “Finally, there is evidence that participation in epidemiological studies may have declined in recent decades [ 137 , 138 ], which underscores the need for transparent reporting [ 139 ].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morton, L. M., Cahill, J., & Hartge, P.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Westat (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Morton, Lindsay M.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2005-12-07
Volume
163
Issue
3
Pages
197-203
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2107252782
Cited by
461
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 36
FWCI
22.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
research participation, self-selection bias, declining participation, reporting practices, case-control study, cohort studies, cross-sectional study, internal validity
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Epidemiologic Research Design, Bibliometrics, Selection Bias, Patient Selection, Research Subjects, Refusal to Participate

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