The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does Low Participation in Cohort Studies Induce Bias?
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participation rates in large cohort studies have decreased during the last 2 decades. The consequences of this trend for relative risk estimation are unknown. METHODS: The impact of a low participation rate (30%) on the Danish National Birth Cohort was examined among 49,751 women from the source population, including 15,373 participants in the cohort study. On the basis of independent data collection, we estimated odds ratios (ORs) in the source population and among participants for 3 exposure-risk associations: (a) in vitro fertilization and preterm birth, (b) smoking during pregnancy and birth of a small-for-gestational-age infant, and (c) prepregnancy body mass index and antepartum stillbirth. The effect of nonparticipation was described by a relative odds ratio (ROR), calculated as the OR(participants)/OR(source population). Two methods for calculation of confidence intervals for the relative odds ratio also were assessed. RESULTS: The effect of nonparticipation on the selected ORs was small. The relative ORs were close to one and the bias was never larger than 16%, although some of the confidence intervals were wide. The 2 methods for calculation of confidence intervals gave very similar results and a small simulation study showed that the coverage probabilities were close to the 95% nominal level. CONCLUSION: For the 3 chosen associations, the ORs were not biased by nonparticipation. The results are reassuring for studies based on the Danish cohort and similar cohorts of pregnant women. The methodology used to compute confidence intervals for the relative odds ratios performed well in the scenarios considered.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A structural approach to selection bias
Hernán, M. A., Hernández-Díaz, S., & Robins, J. M. (2004) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/01.ede.0000135174.63482.43 · Cited by 2,844 · cited 1×
“These conditions may again correlate with risk factors for the outcome under study, and some selection bias cannot be ruled out.(10) Here, we study the bias that arises when the selection into a study leads to effect estimates among participants that differ from those found in the source population.”
Background
Cited by
Participation Rates in Epidemiologic Studies
Galea, S., & Tracy, M. (2007) · Annals of Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.03.013 · Cited by 1,877
Self‐selection and bias in a large prospective pregnancy cohort in Norway
Nilsen, R. M., Vollset, S. E., Gjessing, H. K., Skjærven, R., Melve, K. K., Schreuder, P., Alsaker, E. R., Haug, K., Daltveit, A. K., & Magnus, P. (2009) · Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-3016.2009.01062.x · Cited by 835
How much loss to follow-up is acceptable in long-term randomised trials and prospective studies?
Fewtrell, M. S., Kennedy, K., Singhal, A., Martin, R. M., Ness, A., Hadders-Algra, M., Koletzko, B., & Lucas, A. (2008) · Archives of Disease in Childhood · doi:10.1136/adc.2007.127316 · Cited by 601
Web-based Questionnaires: The Future in Epidemiology?
van Gelder, M. M. H. J., Bretveld, R. W., & Roeleveld, N. (2010) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwq291 · Cited by 580
Ajslev, T. A., Andersen, C. S., Gamborg, M., Sørensen, T. I. A., & Jess, T. (2011) · International Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1038/ijo.2011.27 · Cited by 534
Metadata
- Authors
- Nohr, E. A., Frydenberg, M., Henriksen, T. B., & Olsen, J.
- Venue
- Epidemiology
- Published
- 2006-07
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 413-418
- ISSN
- 1044-3983 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2049342566
- Cited by
- 570
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.56
- Type
- journal article
- 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: Does Low Participation in Cohort Studies Induce Bias? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ede.0000220549.14177.60
- The paper
- Nohr, E. A., Frydenberg, M., Henriksen, T. B., & Olsen, J. (2006). Does Low Participation in Cohort Studies Induce Bias? Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000220549.14177.60
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.