Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 363

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 access
Nohr, Ellen A, Liew, Zeyan·2018·Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
DOI 10.1111/aogs.13319
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/aogs.13319

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

Cited by

See all 363

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
DOI
10.1111/aogs.13319
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

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.