Bias in psychiatric case–control studies: Literature survey
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Case-control studies are vulnerable to selection and information biases which may generate misleading findings. AIMS: To assess the quality of methodological reporting of case-control studies published in general psychiatric journals. METHOD: All the case-control studies published over a 2-year period in the six general psychiatric journals with impact factors of more than 3 were assessed by a group of psychiatrists with training in epidemiology using a structured assessment devised for the purpose. The measured study quality was compared across type of exposure and journal. RESULTS: The reporting of methods in the 408 identified papers was generally poor, with basic information about recruitment of participants often absent. Reduction of selection bias was described best in the "pencil and paper" studies and worst in the genetic studies. Neuroimaging studies reported the most safeguards against information bias. Measurement of exposure was reported least well in studies determining the exposure with a biological test. CONCLUSIONS: Poor reporting of recruitment strategies threatens the validity of reported results and reduces the generalisability of studies.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Only few reports of case-control studies in psychiatry explained the methods used to identify cases and controls.
“Only few reports of case-control studies in psychiatry explained the methods used to identify cases and controls [7].”
From The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007) · cites this paper as [7]
The reporting of observational research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability.
“The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability.”
From The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies (2014) · cites this paper as [7]
Only few reports of case-control studies in psychiatry explained the methods used to identify cases and controls.
“Only few reports of case e control studies in psychiatry explained the methods used to identify cases and controls [7].”
From The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies (2014) · cites this paper as [7]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 92
- Authors
- Lee, W., Bindman, J., Ford, T., Glozier, N., Moran, P., Stewart, R., & Hotopf, M.
- Affiliations
- King's College London (GB)
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hotopf, Matthew
- Venue
- British Journal of Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Royal College of Psychiatrists
- Published
- 2007-03
- Volume
- 190
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 204-209
- ISSN
- 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
- 1472-1465
- OpenAlex
- W1988426860
- Cited by
- 92
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 12.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- case-control study, selection bias, information bias, methodological reporting quality, psychiatric epidemiology, participant recruitment, exposure measurement, genetic research, research validity
- MeSH terms
- Periodicals as Topic, Psychiatry, Observer Variation, Bias, Case-Control Studies
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
