The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How to investigate and adjust for selection bias in cohort studies
Open accessAbstract
Longitudinal cohort studies can provide important evidence about preventable causes of disease, but the success relies heavily on the commitment of their participants, both at recruitment and during follow up. Initial participation rates have decreased in recent decades as have willingness to participate in subsequent follow ups. It is important to examine how such selection affects the validity of the results. In this article, we describe the conceptual framework for selection bias due to nonparticipation and loss to follow up in cohort studies, using both a traditional epidemiological approach and directed acyclic graphs. Methods to quantify selection bias are introduced together with analytical strategies to adjust for the bias including controlling for covariates associated with selection, inverse probability weighting and bias analysis. We use several studies conducted in the Danish National Birth Cohort as examples of how to quantify selection bias and also understand the underlying selection mechanisms. Although women who chose to participate in this cohort were typically of higher social status, healthier and with less disease than all those eligible for study, differential selection was modest and the influence of selection bias on several selected exposure–outcome associations was limited. These findings are reassuring and support enrolling a subset of motivated participants who would engage in long‐term follow up rather than prioritize representativeness. Some of the presented methods are applicable even with limited data on nonparticipants and those lost to follow up, and can also be applied to other study designs such as case–control studies and surveys.
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
Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology
Robins, J. M., Hernán, M. Á., & Brumback, B. (2000) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/00001648-200009000-00011 · Cited by 5,581
Causal Diagrams for Epidemiologic Research
Greenland, S., Pearl, J., & Robins, J. M. (1999) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/00001648-199901000-00008 · Cited by 3,728
Air Pollution and Hospital Admissions for Heart Disease in Eight U.S. Counties
Schwartz, J. (1999) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/00001648-199901000-00005 · Cited by 3,038
Causality: models, reasoning, and inference
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-1494a · Cited by 2,873
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 4×
“have more extensively discussed these various types of scenarios (11)”
BackgroundMethodInfluential(1988) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-108-2-316_4 · Cited by 1,926
Limitations of the Application of Fourfold Table Analysis to Hospital Data
Berkson, J. (1946) · Biometrics Bulletin · doi:10.2307/3002000 · Cited by 1,810 · cited 1×
“E?[S] D) as also illustrated in Figure 5 (the DAG on the right) (22).”
BackgroundMaternal Pesticide Exposure from Multiple Sources and Selected Congenital Anomalies
Shaw, G. M., Wasserman, C. R., OʼMalley, C. D., Nelson, V., & Jackson, R. J. (1999) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/00001648-199901000-00011 · Cited by 1,784
The Danish National Birth Cohort - its background, structure and aim
Olsen, J., Melbye, M., Olsen, S. F., Sørensen, T. I. A., Aaby, P., Nybo Andersen, A.-M., Taxbøl, D., Hansen, K. D., Juhl, M., Schow, T. B., et al. (2001) · Scandinavian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1177/14034948010290040201 · Cited by 1,068
Robins, J. M., & Finkelstein, D. M. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00779.x · Cited by 877 · cited 1×
“Inverse probability weighting (IPW) technique is often used to control for selection bias (23,24).”
Method
Cited by
Cross‐sectional studies – what are they good for?
Kesmodel, U. S. (2018) · Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/aogs.13331 · Cited by 523
Risk of Bias Evaluation of Cross‐Sectional Studies: Adaptation of the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale
Carra, M. C., Romandini, P., & Romandini, M. (2026) · Journal of Periodontal Research · doi:10.1111/jre.13405 · Cited by 260
Enzenbach, C., Wicklein, B., Wirkner, K., & Loeffler, M. (2019) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0779-8 · Cited by 186
Gerritsen, S. E., van Bodegom, L. S., Overbeek, M. M., Maras, A., Verhulst, F. C., Wolke, D., Rizopoulos, D., de Girolamo, G., Franić, T., Madan, J., et al. (2022) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(22)00310-8 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Nohr, E. A., & Liew, Z.
- Venue
- Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-03-05
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 407-416
- ISSN
- 0001-6349 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0412
- OpenAlex
- W2793569843
- Cited by
- 363
- References
- 34
- FWCI
- 24.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: How to investigate and adjust for selection bias in cohort studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/aogs.13319
- The paper
- Nohr, E. A., & Liew, Z. (2018). How to investigate and adjust for selection bias in cohort studies. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13319
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.