The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Retrospective Studies – Utility and Caveats
Abstract
A thorough understanding of the pros and cons of the various study designs is critical to correct interpretation of their results. Retrospective studies are an important tool to study rare diseases, manifestations and outcomes. Findings of these studies can form the basis on which prospective studies are planned. Retrospective studies however have several limitations owing to their design. Since they depend on review of charts that were originally not designed to collect data for research, some information is bound to be missing. Selection and recall biases also affect the results and reasons for differences in treatment between patients and lost follow ups can often not be ascertained and may lead to bias. Readers need to critically evaluate the methods and carefully interpret the results of retrospective studies before they put them to practice. Researchers should avoid over generalisation of results and be cautious in claiming cause-effect relationship in retrospective studies.
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
Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China
Huang, C., Wang, Y., Li, X., Ren, L., Zhao, J., Hu, Y., Zhang, L., Fan, G., Xu, J., Gu, X., et al. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30183-5 · Cited by 48,884
Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 in China
Guan, W.-J., Ni, Z.-Y., Hu, Y., Liang, W.-H., Ou, C.-Q., He, J.-X., Liu, L., Shan, H., Lei, C.-L., Hui, D. S. C., et al. (2020) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2002032 · Cited by 30,246
Association of cardiac injury with mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China
Shi, S., Qin, M., Shen, B., Cai, Y., Liu, T., Yang, F., Gong, W., Liu, X., Liang, J., Zhao, Q., et al. (2020) · JAMA Cardiology · doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0950 · Cited by 4,349
Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung
Doll, R., & Hill, A. B. (1950) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.2.4682.739 · Cited by 1,999
Mann, C. J. (2003) · Emergency Medicine Journal · doi:10.1136/emj.20.1.54 · Cited by 1,558
Recall bias in epidemiologic studies
Coughlin, S. S. (1990) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(90)90060-3 · Cited by 1,381
Hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis: A comparison of adjusted mortality rates
Fenton, S. S. A., Schaubel, D. E., Desmeules, M., Morrison, H. I., Mao, Y., Copleston, P., Jeffery, J. R., & Kjellstrand, C. M. (1997) · American Journal of Kidney Diseases · doi:10.1016/s0272-6386(97)90276-6 · Cited by 618
Observational and interventional study design types; an overview
Thiese, M. S. (2014) · Biochemia Medica · doi:10.11613/bm.2014.022 · Cited by 613
Descriptive studies: what they can and cannot do
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07373-7 · Cited by 586
Cohort Studies: Prospective versus Retrospective
Euser, A. M., Zoccali, C., Jager, K. J., & Dekker, F. W. (2009) · Nephron Clinical Practice · doi:10.1159/000235241 · Cited by 388
Cited by
Souza, K., Sosu, E. M., Thomson, S., & Rasmussen, S. (2024) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2024.2336013 · Cited by 56
He, T. T., Jiao, T. Q., & An, X. M. (2026) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.20770 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Talari, K., & Goyal, M.
- Venue
- Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-12
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 398-402
- ISSN
- 1478-2715 (ISSN-L)
- 2042-8189
- OpenAlex
- W3118412786
- Cited by
- 658
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 29.71
- 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: Retrospective Studies – Utility and Caveats. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4997/jrcpe.2020.409
- The paper
- Talari, K., & Goyal, M. (2020). Retrospective Studies – Utility and Caveats. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. https://doi.org/10.4997/jrcpe.2020.409
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.
