Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 388

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cohort Studies: Prospective versus Retrospective

Euser, Anne M., Zoccali, Carmine, Jager, Kitty J., Dekker, Friedo W.·2009·Nephron Clinical Practice
DOI 10.1159/000235241
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Cohort studies form a suitable study design to assess associations between multiple exposures on the one hand and multiple outcomes on the other hand. They are especially appropriate to study rare exposures or exposures for which randomization is not possible for practical or ethical reasons. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies have higher accuracy and higher efficiency as their respective main advantages. In addition to possible confounding by indication, cohort studies may suffer from selection bias. Confounding and bias should be prevented whenever possible, but still can exert unknown effects in unknown directions. If one is aware of this, cohort studies can form a potent study design in nephrology producing, in general, highly generalizable results.

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 · 10.1159/000235241

Cites

7 of 7 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

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 388

Metadata

Authors
Euser, A. M., Zoccali, C., Jager, K. J., & Dekker, F. W.
Venue
Nephron Clinical Practice
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2009-08-18
Volume
113
Issue
3
Pages
c214-c217
ISSN
1660-2110 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1159/000235241
OpenAlex
W2162055363
Cited by
388
References
7
FWCI
4.37
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: Cohort Studies: Prospective versus Retrospective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000235241
The paper
Euser, A. M., Zoccali, C., Jager, K. J., & Dekker, F. W. (2009). Cohort Studies: Prospective versus Retrospective. Nephron Clinical Practice. https://doi.org/10.1159/000235241

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.