Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 570

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?

Nohr, Ellen Aagaard, Frydenberg, Morten, Henriksen, Tine Brink, Olsen, Jorn·2006·Epidemiology

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.ede.0000220549.14177.60

Cites

1 of 1 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

  • 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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 570

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.