case study and case control

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is a Case-Control Study? | Definition & Examples

What Is a Case-Control Study? | Definition & Examples

Published on February 4, 2023 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

A case-control study is an experimental design that compares a group of participants possessing a condition of interest to a very similar group lacking that condition. Here, the participants possessing the attribute of study, such as a disease, are called the “case,” and those without it are the “control.”

It’s important to remember that the case group is chosen because they already possess the attribute of interest. The point of the control group is to facilitate investigation, e.g., studying whether the case group systematically exhibits that attribute more than the control group does.

Table of contents

When to use a case-control study, examples of case-control studies, advantages and disadvantages of case-control studies, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions.

Case-control studies are a type of observational study often used in fields like medical research, environmental health, or epidemiology. While most observational studies are qualitative in nature, case-control studies can also be quantitative , and they often are in healthcare settings. Case-control studies can be used for both exploratory and explanatory research , and they are a good choice for studying research topics like disease exposure and health outcomes.

A case-control study may be a good fit for your research if it meets the following criteria.

• Data on exposure (e.g., to a chemical or a pesticide) are difficult to obtain or expensive.
• The disease associated with the exposure you’re studying has a long incubation period or is rare or under-studied (e.g., AIDS in the early 1980s).
• The population you are studying is difficult to contact for follow-up questions (e.g., asylum seekers).

Retrospective cohort studies use existing secondary research data, such as medical records or databases, to identify a group of people with a common exposure or risk factor and to observe their outcomes over time. Case-control studies conduct primary research , comparing a group of participants possessing a condition of interest to a very similar group lacking that condition in real time.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Case-control studies are common in fields like epidemiology, healthcare, and psychology.

You would then collect data on your participants’ exposure to contaminated drinking water, focusing on variables such as the source of said water and the duration of exposure, for both groups. You could then compare the two to determine if there is a relationship between drinking water contamination and the risk of developing a gastrointestinal illness. Example: Healthcare case-control study You are interested in the relationship between the dietary intake of a particular vitamin (e.g., vitamin D) and the risk of developing osteoporosis later in life. Here, the case group would be individuals who have been diagnosed with osteoporosis, while the control group would be individuals without osteoporosis.

You would then collect information on dietary intake of vitamin D for both the cases and controls and compare the two groups to determine if there is a relationship between vitamin D intake and the risk of developing osteoporosis. Example: Psychology case-control study You are studying the relationship between early-childhood stress and the likelihood of later developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Here, the case group would be individuals who have been diagnosed with PTSD, while the control group would be individuals without PTSD.

Case-control studies are a solid research method choice, but they come with distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages of case-control studies

• Case-control studies are a great choice if you have any ethical considerations about your participants that could preclude you from using a traditional experimental design .
• Case-control studies are time efficient and fairly inexpensive to conduct because they require fewer subjects than other research methods .
• If there were multiple exposures leading to a single outcome, case-control studies can incorporate that. As such, they truly shine when used to study rare outcomes or outbreaks of a particular disease .

Disadvantages of case-control studies

• Case-control studies, similarly to observational studies, run a high risk of research biases . They are particularly susceptible to observer bias , recall bias , and interviewer bias.
• In the case of very rare exposures of the outcome studied, attempting to conduct a case-control study can be very time consuming and inefficient .
• Case-control studies in general have low internal validity  and are not always credible.

Case-control studies by design focus on one singular outcome. This makes them very rigid and not generalizable , as no extrapolation can be made about other outcomes like risk recurrence or future exposure threat. This leads to less satisfying results than other methodological choices.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability bias

A case-control study differs from a cohort study because cohort studies are more longitudinal in nature and do not necessarily require a control group .

While one may be added if the investigator so chooses, members of the cohort are primarily selected because of a shared characteristic among them. In particular, retrospective cohort studies are designed to follow a group of people with a common exposure or risk factor over time and observe their outcomes.

Case-control studies, in contrast, require both a case group and a control group, as suggested by their name, and usually are used to identify risk factors for a disease by comparing cases and controls.

A case-control study differs from a cross-sectional study because case-control studies are naturally retrospective in nature, looking backward in time to identify exposures that may have occurred before the development of the disease.

On the other hand, cross-sectional studies collect data on a population at a single point in time. The goal here is to describe the characteristics of the population, such as their age, gender identity, or health status, and understand the distribution and relationships of these characteristics.

Cases and controls are selected for a case-control study based on their inherent characteristics. Participants already possessing the condition of interest form the “case,” while those without form the “control.”

Keep in mind that by definition the case group is chosen because they already possess the attribute of interest. The point of the control group is to facilitate investigation, e.g., studying whether the case group systematically exhibits that attribute more than the control group does.

The strength of the association between an exposure and a disease in a case-control study can be measured using a few different statistical measures , such as odds ratios (ORs) and relative risk (RR).

No, case-control studies cannot establish causality as a standalone measure.

As observational studies , they can suggest associations between an exposure and a disease, but they cannot prove without a doubt that the exposure causes the disease. In particular, issues arising from timing, research biases like recall bias , and the selection of variables lead to low internal validity and the inability to determine causality.

Sources in this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

George, T. (2023, June 22). What Is a Case-Control Study? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/case-control-study/

Schlesselman, J. J. (1982). Case-Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis (Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 2) (Illustrated). Oxford University Press.

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is an observational study | guide & examples, control groups and treatment groups | uses & examples, cross-sectional study | definition, uses & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

• En español – ExME
• Em português – EME

Case-control and Cohort studies: A brief overview

Posted on 6th December 2017 by Saul Crandon

Introduction

Case-control and cohort studies are observational studies that lie near the middle of the hierarchy of evidence . These types of studies, along with randomised controlled trials, constitute analytical studies, whereas case reports and case series define descriptive studies (1). Although these studies are not ranked as highly as randomised controlled trials, they can provide strong evidence if designed appropriately.

Case-control studies

Case-control studies are retrospective. They clearly define two groups at the start: one with the outcome/disease and one without the outcome/disease. They look back to assess whether there is a statistically significant difference in the rates of exposure to a defined risk factor between the groups. See Figure 1 for a pictorial representation of a case-control study design. This can suggest associations between the risk factor and development of the disease in question, although no definitive causality can be drawn. The main outcome measure in case-control studies is odds ratio (OR) .

Figure 1. Case-control study design.

Cases should be selected based on objective inclusion and exclusion criteria from a reliable source such as a disease registry. An inherent issue with selecting cases is that a certain proportion of those with the disease would not have a formal diagnosis, may not present for medical care, may be misdiagnosed or may have died before getting a diagnosis. Regardless of how the cases are selected, they should be representative of the broader disease population that you are investigating to ensure generalisability.

Case-control studies should include two groups that are identical EXCEPT for their outcome / disease status.

As such, controls should also be selected carefully. It is possible to match controls to the cases selected on the basis of various factors (e.g. age, sex) to ensure these do not confound the study results. It may even increase statistical power and study precision by choosing up to three or four controls per case (2).

Case-controls can provide fast results and they are cheaper to perform than most other studies. The fact that the analysis is retrospective, allows rare diseases or diseases with long latency periods to be investigated. Furthermore, you can assess multiple exposures to get a better understanding of possible risk factors for the defined outcome / disease.

Nevertheless, as case-controls are retrospective, they are more prone to bias. One of the main examples is recall bias. Often case-control studies require the participants to self-report their exposure to a certain factor. Recall bias is the systematic difference in how the two groups may recall past events e.g. in a study investigating stillbirth, a mother who experienced this may recall the possible contributing factors a lot more vividly than a mother who had a healthy birth.

A summary of the pros and cons of case-control studies are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of case-control studies.

Cohort studies

Cohort studies can be retrospective or prospective. Retrospective cohort studies are NOT the same as case-control studies.

In retrospective cohort studies, the exposure and outcomes have already happened. They are usually conducted on data that already exists (from prospective studies) and the exposures are defined before looking at the existing outcome data to see whether exposure to a risk factor is associated with a statistically significant difference in the outcome development rate.

Prospective cohort studies are more common. People are recruited into cohort studies regardless of their exposure or outcome status. This is one of their important strengths. People are often recruited because of their geographical area or occupation, for example, and researchers can then measure and analyse a range of exposures and outcomes.

The study then follows these participants for a defined period to assess the proportion that develop the outcome/disease of interest. See Figure 2 for a pictorial representation of a cohort study design. Therefore, cohort studies are good for assessing prognosis, risk factors and harm. The outcome measure in cohort studies is usually a risk ratio / relative risk (RR).

Figure 2. Cohort study design.

Cohort studies should include two groups that are identical EXCEPT for their exposure status.

As a result, both exposed and unexposed groups should be recruited from the same source population. Another important consideration is attrition. If a significant number of participants are not followed up (lost, death, dropped out) then this may impact the validity of the study. Not only does it decrease the study’s power, but there may be attrition bias – a significant difference between the groups of those that did not complete the study.

Cohort studies can assess a range of outcomes allowing an exposure to be rigorously assessed for its impact in developing disease. Additionally, they are good for rare exposures, e.g. contact with a chemical radiation blast.

Whilst cohort studies are useful, they can be expensive and time-consuming, especially if a long follow-up period is chosen or the disease itself is rare or has a long latency.

A summary of the pros and cons of cohort studies are provided in Table 2.

The Strengthening of Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Statement (STROBE)

STROBE provides a checklist of important steps for conducting these types of studies, as well as acting as best-practice reporting guidelines (3). Both case-control and cohort studies are observational, with varying advantages and disadvantages. However, the most important factor to the quality of evidence these studies provide, is their methodological quality.

• Song, J. and Chung, K. Observational Studies: Cohort and Case-Control Studies .  Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.  2010 Dec;126(6):2234-2242.
• Ury HK. Efficiency of case-control studies with multiple controls per case: Continuous or dichotomous data .  Biometrics . 1975 Sep;31(3):643–649.
• von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.   Lancet 2007 Oct;370(9596):1453-14577. PMID: 18064739.

Saul Crandon

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

No Comments on Case-control and Cohort studies: A brief overview

Very well presented, excellent clarifications. Has put me right back into class, literally!

Very clear and informative! Thank you.

very informative article.

Thank you for the easy to understand blog in cohort studies. I want to follow a group of people with and without a disease to see what health outcomes occurs to them in future such as hospitalisations, diagnoses, procedures etc, as I have many health outcomes to consider, my questions is how to make sure these outcomes has not occurred before the “exposure disease”. As, in cohort studies we are looking at incidence (new) cases, so if an outcome have occurred before the exposure, I can leave them out of the analysis. But because I am not looking at a single outcome which can be checked easily and if happened before exposure can be left out. I have EHR data, so all the exposure and outcome have occurred. my aim is to check the rates of different health outcomes between the exposed)dementia) and unexposed(non-dementia) individuals.

Very helpful information

Thanks for making this subject student friendly and easier to understand. A great help.

Thanks a lot. It really helped me to understand the topic. I am taking epidemiology class this winter, and your paper really saved me.

Happy new year.

Wow its amazing n simple way of briefing ,which i was enjoyed to learn this.its very easy n quick to pick ideas .. Thanks n stay connected

Saul you absolute melt! Really good work man

am a student of public health. This information is simple and well presented to the point. Thank you so much.

very helpful information provided here

really thanks for wonderful information because i doing my bachelor degree research by survival model

Quite informative thank you so much for the info please continue posting. An mph student with Africa university Zimbabwe.

Thank you this was so helpful amazing

Apreciated the information provided above.

So clear and perfect. The language is simple and superb.I am recommending this to all budding epidemiology students. Thanks a lot.

Great to hear, thank you AJ!

I have recently completed an investigational study where evidence of phlebitis was determined in a control cohort by data mining from electronic medical records. We then introduced an intervention in an attempt to reduce incidence of phlebitis in a second cohort. Again, results were determined by data mining. This was an expedited study, so there subjects were enrolled in a specific cohort based on date(s) of the drug infused. How do I define this study? Thanks so much.

thanks for the information and knowledge about observational studies. am a masters student in public health/epidemilogy of the faculty of medicines and pharmaceutical sciences , University of Dschang. this information is very explicit and straight to the point

Very much helpful

Subscribe to our newsletter

You will receive our monthly newsletter and free access to Trip Premium.

Related Articles

Cluster Randomized Trials: Concepts

This blog summarizes the concepts of cluster randomization, and the logistical and statistical considerations while designing a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Expertise-based Randomized Controlled Trials

This blog summarizes the concepts of Expertise-based randomized controlled trials with a focus on the advantages and challenges associated with this type of study.

An introduction to different types of study design

Conducting successful research requires choosing the appropriate study design. This article describes the most common types of designs conducted by researchers.

• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Statistics By Jim

Making statistics intuitive

Case Control Study: Definition, Benefits & Examples

By Jim Frost 2 Comments

What is a Case Control Study?

A case control study is a retrospective, observational study that compares two existing groups. Researchers form these groups based on the existence of a condition in the case group and the lack of that condition in the control group. They evaluate the differences in the histories between these two groups looking for factors that might cause a disease.

By evaluating differences in exposure to risk factors between the case and control groups, researchers can learn which factors are associated with the medical condition.

For example, medical researchers study disease X and use a case-control study design to identify risk factors. They create two groups using available medical records from hospitals. Individuals with disease X are in the case group, while those without it are in the control group. If the case group has more exposure to a risk factor than the control group, that exposure is a potential cause for disease X. However, case-control studies establish only correlation and not causation. Be aware of spurious correlations!

Case-control studies are observational studies because researchers do not control the risk factors—they only observe them. They are retrospective studies because the scientists create the case and control groups after the outcomes for the subjects (e.g., disease vs. no disease) are known.

This post explains the benefits and limitations of case-control studies, controlling confounders, and analyzing and interpreting the results. I close with an example case control study showing how to calculate and interpret the results.

Learn more about Experimental Design: Definition, Types, and Examples .

Related posts : Observational Studies Explained and Control Groups in Experiments

Benefits of a Case Control Study

A case control study is a relatively quick and simple design. They frequently use existing patient data, and the experimenters form the groups after the outcomes are known. Researchers do not conduct an experiment. Instead, they look for differences between the case and control groups that are potential risk factors for the condition. Small groups and individual facilities can conduct case-control studies, unlike other more intensive types of experiments.

Case-control studies are perfect for evaluating outbreaks and rare conditions. Researchers simply need to let a sufficient number of known cases accumulate in an established database. The alternative would be to select a large random sample and hope that the condition afflicts it eventually.

A case control study can provide rapid results during outbreaks where the researchers need quick answers. They are ideal for the preliminary investigation phase, where scientists screen potential risk factors. As such, they can point the way for more thorough, time-consuming, and expensive studies. They are especially beneficial when the current state of science knows little about the connection between risk factors and the medical condition. And when you need to identify potential risk factors quickly!

Cohort studies are another type of observational study that are similar to case-control studies, but there are some important differences. To learn more, read my post about Cohort Studies .

Limitations of a Case Control Study

Because case-control studies are observational, they cannot establish causality and provide lower quality evidence than other experimental designs, such as randomized controlled trials . Additionally, as you’ll see in the next section, this type of study is susceptible to confounding variables unless experimenters correctly match traits between the two groups.

A case-control study typically depends on health records. If the necessary data exist in sources available to the researchers, all is good. However, the investigation becomes more complicated if the data are not readily available.

Case-control studies can incorporate biases from the underlying data sources. For example, researchers frequently obtain patient data from hospital records. The population of hospital patients is likely to differ from the general population. Even the control patients are in the hospital for some reason—they likely have serious health problems. Consequently, the subjects in case-control studies are likely to differ from the general population, which reduces the generalizability of the results.

A case-control study cannot estimate incidence or prevalence rates for the disease. The data from these studies do not allow you to calculate the probability of a new person contracting the condition in a given period nor how common it is in the population. This limitation occurs because case-control studies do not use a representative sample.

Case-control studies cannot determine the time between exposure and onset of the medical condition. In fact, case-control studies cannot reliably assess each subject’s exposure to risk factors over time. Longitudinal studies, such as prospective cohort studies, can better make those types of assessment.

Related post : Causation versus Correlation in Statistics

Use Matching to Control Confounders

Because case-control studies are observational studies, they are particularly vulnerable to confounding variables and spurious correlations . A confounder correlates with both the risk factor and the outcome variable. Because observational studies don’t use random assignment to equalize confounders between the case and control groups, they can become unbalanced and affect the results.

Unfortunately, confounders can be the actual cause of the medical condition rather than the risk factor that the researchers identify. If a case-control study does not account for confounding variables, it can bias the results and make them untrustworthy.

Case-control studies typically use trait matching to control confounders. This technique involves selecting study participants for the case and control groups with similar characteristics, which helps equalize the groups for potential confounders. Equalizing confounders limits their impact on the results.

Ultimately, the goal is to create case and control groups that have equal risks for developing the condition/disease outside the risk factors the researchers are explicitly assessing. Matching facilitates valid comparisons between the two groups because the controls are similar to cases. The researchers use subject-area knowledge to identify characteristics that are critical to match.

Note that you cannot assess matching variables as potential risk factors. You’ve intentionally equalized them across the case and control groups and, consequently, they do not correlate with the condition. Hence, do not use the risk factors you want to evaluate as trait matching variables.

Learn more about confounding variables .

Statistical Analysis of a Case Control Study

Researchers frequently include two controls for each case to increase statistical power for a case-control study. Adding even more controls per case provides few statistical benefits, so studies usually do not use more than a 2:1 control to case ratio.

For statistical results, case-control studies typically produce an odds ratio for each potential risk factor. The equation below shows how to calculate an odds ratio for a case-control study.

Notice how this ratio takes the exposure odds in the case group and divides it by the exposure odds in the control group. Consequently, it quantifies how much higher the odds of exposure are among cases than the controls.

In general, odds ratios greater than one flag potential risk factors because they indicate that exposure was higher in the case group than in the control group. Furthermore, higher ratios signify stronger associations between exposure and the medical condition.

An odds ratio of one indicates that exposure was the same in the case and control groups. Nothing to see here!

Ratios less than one might identify protective factors.

Learn more about Understanding Ratios .

Now, let’s bring this to life with an example!

Example Odds Ratio in a Case-Control Study

The Kent County Health Department in Michigan conducted a case-control study in 2005 for a company lunch that produced an outbreak of vomiting and diarrhea. Out of multiple lunch ingredients, researchers found the following exposure rates for lettuce consumption.

By plugging these numbers into the equation, we can calculate the odds ratio for lettuce in this case-control study.

The study determined that the odds ratio for lettuce is 11.2.

This ratio indicates that those with symptoms were 11.2 times more likely to have eaten lettuce than those without symptoms. These results raise a big red flag for contaminated lettuce being the culprit!

Learn more about Odds Ratios.

Epidemiology in Practice: Case-Control Studies (NIH)

Interpreting Results of Case-Control Studies (CDC)

Share this:

Reader Interactions

January 18, 2022 at 7:56 am

Great post, thanks for writing it!

Is it possible to test an odds ration for statistical significance?

January 18, 2022 at 7:41 pm

Hi Michael,

Thanks! And yes, you can test for significance. To learn more about that, read my post about odds ratios , where I discuss p-values and confidence intervals.

Comments and Questions Cancel reply

What Is A Case Control Study?

Julia Simkus

Editor at Simply Psychology

BA (Hons) Psychology, Princeton University

Julia Simkus is a graduate of Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. She is currently studying for a Master's Degree in Counseling for Mental Health and Wellness in September 2023. Julia's research has been published in peer reviewed journals.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

A case-control study is a research method where two groups of people are compared – those with the condition (cases) and those without (controls). By looking at their past, researchers try to identify what factors might have contributed to the condition in the ‘case’ group.

Explanation

A case-control study looks at people who already have a certain condition (cases) and people who don’t (controls). By comparing these two groups, researchers try to figure out what might have caused the condition. They look into the past to find clues, like habits or experiences, that are different between the two groups.

The “cases” are the individuals with the disease or condition under study, and the “controls” are similar individuals without the disease or condition of interest.

The controls should have similar characteristics (i.e., age, sex, demographic, health status) to the cases to mitigate the effects of confounding variables .

Case-control studies identify any associations between an exposure and an outcome and help researchers form hypotheses about a particular population.

Researchers will first identify the two groups, and then look back in time to investigate which subjects in each group were exposed to the condition.

If the exposure is found more commonly in the cases than the controls, the researcher can hypothesize that the exposure may be linked to the outcome of interest.

Figure: Schematic diagram of case-control study design. Kenneth F. Schulz and David A. Grimes (2002) Case-control studies: research in reverse . The Lancet Volume 359, Issue 9304, 431 – 434

Quick, inexpensive, and simple

Because these studies use already existing data and do not require any follow-up with subjects, they tend to be quicker and cheaper than other types of research. Case-control studies also do not require large sample sizes.

Beneficial for studying rare diseases

Researchers in case-control studies start with a population of people known to have the target disease instead of following a population and waiting to see who develops it. This enables researchers to identify current cases and enroll a sufficient number of patients with a particular rare disease.

Useful for preliminary research

Case-control studies are beneficial for an initial investigation of a suspected risk factor for a condition. The information obtained from cross-sectional studies then enables researchers to conduct further data analyses to explore any relationships in more depth.

Limitations

Subject to recall bias.

Participants might be unable to remember when they were exposed or omit other details that are important for the study. In addition, those with the outcome are more likely to recall and report exposures more clearly than those without the outcome.

Difficulty finding a suitable control group

It is important that the case group and the control group have almost the same characteristics, such as age, gender, demographics, and health status.

Forming an accurate control group can be challenging, so sometimes researchers enroll multiple control groups to bolster the strength of the case-control study.

Do not demonstrate causation

Case-control studies may prove an association between exposures and outcomes, but they can not demonstrate causation.

A case-control study is an observational study where researchers analyzed two groups of people (cases and controls) to look at factors associated with particular diseases or outcomes.

Below are some examples of case-control studies:

• Investigating the impact of exposure to daylight on the health of office workers (Boubekri et al., 2014).
• Comparing serum vitamin D levels in individuals who experience migraine headaches with their matched controls (Togha et al., 2018).
• Analyzing correlations between parental smoking and childhood asthma (Strachan and Cook, 1998).
• Studying the relationship between elevated concentrations of homocysteine and an increased risk of vascular diseases (Ford et al., 2002).
• Assessing the magnitude of the association between Helicobacter pylori and the incidence of gastric cancer (Helicobacter and Cancer Collaborative Group, 2001).
• Evaluating the association between breast cancer risk and saturated fat intake in postmenopausal women (Howe et al., 1990).

Frequently asked questions

1. what’s the difference between a case-control study and a cross-sectional study.

Case-control studies are different from cross-sectional studies in that case-control studies compare groups retrospectively while cross-sectional studies analyze information about a population at a specific point in time.

In  cross-sectional studies , researchers are simply examining a group of participants and depicting what already exists in the population.

2. What’s the difference between a case-control study and a longitudinal study?

Case-control studies compare groups retrospectively, while longitudinal studies can compare groups either retrospectively or prospectively.

In a  longitudinal study , researchers monitor a population over an extended period of time, and they can be used to study developmental shifts and understand how certain things change as we age.

In addition, case-control studies look at a single subject or a single case, whereas longitudinal studies can be conducted on a large group of subjects.

3. What’s the difference between a case-control study and a retrospective cohort study?

Case-control studies are retrospective as researchers begin with an outcome and trace backward to investigate exposure; however, they differ from retrospective cohort studies.

In a  retrospective cohort study , researchers examine a group before any of the subjects have developed the disease, then examine any factors that differed between the individuals who developed the condition and those who did not.

Thus, the outcome is measured after exposure in retrospective cohort studies, whereas the outcome is measured before the exposure in case-control studies.

Boubekri, M., Cheung, I., Reid, K., Wang, C., & Zee, P. (2014). Impact of windows and daylight exposure on overall health and sleep quality of office workers: a case-control pilot study. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine: JCSM: Official Publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 10 (6), 603-611.

Ford, E. S., Smith, S. J., Stroup, D. F., Steinberg, K. K., Mueller, P. W., & Thacker, S. B. (2002). Homocyst (e) ine and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review of the evidence with special emphasis on case-control studies and nested case-control studies. International journal of epidemiology, 31 (1), 59-70.

Helicobacter and Cancer Collaborative Group. (2001). Gastric cancer and Helicobacter pylori: a combined analysis of 12 case control studies nested within prospective cohorts. Gut, 49 (3), 347-353.

Howe, G. R., Hirohata, T., Hislop, T. G., Iscovich, J. M., Yuan, J. M., Katsouyanni, K., … & Shunzhang, Y. (1990). Dietary factors and risk of breast cancer: combined analysis of 12 case—control studies. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 82 (7), 561-569.

Lewallen, S., & Courtright, P. (1998). Epidemiology in practice: case-control studies. Community eye health, 11 (28), 57–58.

Strachan, D. P., & Cook, D. G. (1998). Parental smoking and childhood asthma: longitudinal and case-control studies. Thorax, 53 (3), 204-212.

Tenny, S., Kerndt, C. C., & Hoffman, M. R. (2021). Case Control Studies. In StatPearls . StatPearls Publishing.

Togha, M., Razeghi Jahromi, S., Ghorbani, Z., Martami, F., & Seifishahpar, M. (2018). Serum Vitamin D Status in a Group of Migraine Patients Compared With Healthy Controls: A Case-Control Study. Headache, 58 (10), 1530-1540.

Further Information

• Schulz, K. F., & Grimes, D. A. (2002). Case-control studies: research in reverse. The Lancet, 359(9304), 431-434.
• What is a case-control study?

Study Design 101: Case Control Study

• Case Report
• Case Control Study
• Cohort Study
• Randomized Controlled Trial
• Practice Guideline
• Systematic Review
• Meta-Analysis
• Helpful Formulas
• Finding Specific Study Types

A study that compares patients who have a disease or outcome of interest (cases) with patients who do not have the disease or outcome (controls), and looks back retrospectively to compare how frequently the exposure to a risk factor is present in each group to determine the relationship between the risk factor and the disease.

Case control studies are observational because no intervention is attempted and no attempt is made to alter the course of the disease. The goal is to retrospectively determine the exposure to the risk factor of interest from each of the two groups of individuals: cases and controls. These studies are designed to estimate odds.

Case control studies are also known as "retrospective studies" and "case-referent studies."

• Good for studying rare conditions or diseases
• Less time needed to conduct the study because the condition or disease has already occurred
• Lets you simultaneously look at multiple risk factors
• Useful as initial studies to establish an association
• Can answer questions that could not be answered through other study designs

Disadvantages

• Retrospective studies have more problems with data quality because they rely on memory and people with a condition will be more motivated to recall risk factors (also called recall bias).
• Not good for evaluating diagnostic tests because it's already clear that the cases have the condition and the controls do not
• It can be difficult to find a suitable control group

Design pitfalls to look out for

Care should be taken to avoid confounding, which arises when an exposure and an outcome are both strongly associated with a third variable. Controls should be subjects who might have been cases in the study but are selected independent of the exposure. Cases and controls should also not be "over-matched."

Is the control group appropriate for the population? Does the study use matching or pairing appropriately to avoid the effects of a confounding variable? Does it use appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria?

Fictitious Example

There is a suspicion that zinc oxide, the white non-absorbent sunscreen traditionally worn by lifeguards is more effective at preventing sunburns that lead to skin cancer than absorbent sunscreen lotions. A case-control study was conducted to investigate if exposure to zinc oxide is a more effective skin cancer prevention measure. The study involved comparing a group of former lifeguards that had developed cancer on their cheeks and noses (cases) to a group of lifeguards without this type of cancer (controls) and assess their prior exposure to zinc oxide or absorbent sunscreen lotions.

This study would be retrospective in that the former lifeguards would be asked to recall which type of sunscreen they used on their face and approximately how often. This could be either a matched or unmatched study, but efforts would need to be made to ensure that the former lifeguards are of the same average age, and lifeguarded for a similar number of seasons and amount of time per season.

Real-life Examples

Boubekri, M., Cheung, I., Reid, K., Wang, C., & Zee, P. (2014). Impact of windows and daylight exposure on overall health and sleep quality of office workers: a case-control pilot study. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine : JCSM : Official Publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 10 (6), 603-611. https://doi.org/10.5664/jcsm.3780

This pilot study explored the impact of exposure to daylight on the health of office workers (measuring well-being and sleep quality subjectively, and light exposure, activity level and sleep-wake patterns via actigraphy). Individuals with windows in their workplaces had more light exposure, longer sleep duration, and more physical activity. They also reported a better scores in the areas of vitality and role limitations due to physical problems, better sleep quality and less sleep disturbances.

Togha, M., Razeghi Jahromi, S., Ghorbani, Z., Martami, F., & Seifishahpar, M. (2018). Serum Vitamin D Status in a Group of Migraine Patients Compared With Healthy Controls: A Case-Control Study. Headache, 58 (10), 1530-1540. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13423

This case-control study compared serum vitamin D levels in individuals who experience migraine headaches with their matched controls. Studied over a period of thirty days, individuals with higher levels of serum Vitamin D was associated with lower odds of migraine headache.

Related Formulas

• Odds ratio in an unmatched study
• Odds ratio in a matched study

Related Terms

A patient with the disease or outcome of interest.

Confounding

When an exposure and an outcome are both strongly associated with a third variable.

A patient who does not have the disease or outcome.

Matched Design

Each case is matched individually with a control according to certain characteristics such as age and gender. It is important to remember that the concordant pairs (pairs in which the case and control are either both exposed or both not exposed) tell us nothing about the risk of exposure separately for cases or controls.

Observed Assignment

The method of assignment of individuals to study and control groups in observational studies when the investigator does not intervene to perform the assignment.

Unmatched Design

The controls are a sample from a suitable non-affected population.

Now test yourself!

1. Case Control Studies are prospective in that they follow the cases and controls over time and observe what occurs.

a) True b) False

2. Which of the following is an advantage of Case Control Studies?

a) They can simultaneously look at multiple risk factors. b) They are useful to initially establish an association between a risk factor and a disease or outcome. c) They take less time to complete because the condition or disease has already occurred. d) b and c only e) a, b, and c

Evidence Pyramid - Navigation

• Meta- Analysis
• Case Reports
• << Previous: Case Report
• Next: Cohort Study >>

• Last Updated: Sep 25, 2023 10:59 AM
• URL: https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/studydesign101

• Himmelfarb Intranet
• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use
• GW is committed to digital accessibility. If you experience a barrier that affects your ability to access content on this page, let us know via the Accessibility Feedback Form .
• Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library
• 2300 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20037
• Phone: (202) 994-2962
• [email protected]
• https://himmelfarb.gwu.edu

Case-Control Studies

Introduction

Cohort studies have an intuitive logic to them, but they can be very problematic when one is investigating outcomes that only occur in a small fraction of exposed and unexposed individuals. They can also be problematic when it is expensive or very difficult to obtain exposure information from a cohort. In these situations a case-control design offers an alternative that is much more efficient. The goal of a case-control study is the same as that of cohort studies, i.e., to estimate the magnitude of association between an exposure and an outcome. However, case-control studies employ a different sampling strategy that gives them greater efficiency.

Learning Objectives

After completing this module, the student will be able to:

• Define and explain the distinguishing features of a case-control study
• Describe  and identify the types of epidemiologic questions that can be addressed by case-control studies
• Define what is meant by the term "source population"
• Describe the purpose of controls in a case-control study
• Describe differences between hospital-based and population-based case-control studies
• Describe the principles of valid control selection
• Explain the importance of using specific diagnostic criteria and explicit case definitions in case-control studies
• Estimate and interpret the odds ratio from a case-control study
• Identify the potential strengths and limitations of case-control studies

Overview of Case-Control Design

In the module entitled Overview of Analytic Studies it was noted that Rothman describes the case-control strategy as follows:

"Case-control studies are best understood by considering as the starting point a source population , which represents a hypothetical study population in which a cohort study might have been conducted. The source population is the population that gives rise to the cases included in the study. If a cohort study were undertaken, we would define the exposed and unexposed cohorts (or several cohorts) and from these populations obtain denominators for the incidence rates or risks that would be calculated for each cohort. We would then identify the number of cases occurring in each cohort and calculate the risk or incidence rate for each. In a case-control study the same cases are identified and classified as to whether they belong to the exposed or unexposed cohort. Instead of obtaining the denominators for the rates or risks, however, a control group is sampled from the entire source population that gives rise to the cases. Individuals in the control group are then classified into exposed and unexposed categories. The purpose of the control group is to determine the relative size of the exposed and unexposed components of the source population. Because the control group is used to estimate the distribution of exposure in the source population, the cardinal requirement of control selection is that the controls be sampled independently of exposure status."

To illustrate this consider the following hypothetical scenario in which the source population is the state of Massachusetts. Diseased individuals are red, and non-diseased individuals are blue. Exposed individuals are indicated by a whitish midsection. Note the following aspects of the depicted scenario:

• The disease is rare.
• There is a fairly large number of exposed individuals in the state, but most of these are not diseased.

If we somehow had exposure and outcome information on all of the subjects in the source population and looked at the association using a cohort design, we might find the data summarized in the contingency table below.

In this hypothetical example, we have data on all 6,000,000 people in the source population, and we could compute the probability of disease (i.e., the risk or incidence) in both the exposed group and the non-exposed group, because we have the denominators for both the exposed and non-exposed groups.

The table above summarizes all of the necessary information regarding exposure and outcome status for the population and enables us to compute a risk ratio as a measure of the strength of the association. Intuitively, we compute the probability of disease (the risk) in each exposure group and then compute the risk ratio as follows:

The problem , of course, is that we usually don't have the resources to get the data on all subjects in the population. If we took a random sample of even 5-10% of the population, we would have few diseased people in our sample, certainly not enough to produce a reasonably precise measure of association. Moreover, we would expend an inordinate amount of effort and money collecting exposure and outcome data on a large number of people who would not develop the outcome.

We need a method that allows us to retain all the people in the numerator of disease frequency (diseased people or "cases") but allows us to collect information from only a small proportion of the people that make up the denominator (population, or "controls"), most of whom do not have the disease of interest. The case-control design allows us to accomplish this. We identify and collect exposure information on all the cases, but identify and collect exposure information on only a sample of the population. Once we have the exposure information, we can assign subjects to the numerator and denominator of the exposed and unexposed groups. This is what Rothman means when he says,

"The purpose of the control group is to determine the relative size of the exposed and unexposed components of the source population."

In the above example, we would have identified all 1,300 cases, determined their exposure status, and ended up categorizing 700 as exposed and 600 as unexposed. We might have ransomly sampled 6,000 members of the population (instead of 6 million) in order to determine the exposure distribution in the total population. If our sampling method was random, we would expect that about 1,000 would be exposed and 5,000 unexposed (the same ratio as in the overall population). We calculate a similar measure as the risk ratio above, but substituting in the denominator a sample of the population ("controls") instead of the whole population:

Note that when we take a sample of the population, we no longer have a measure of disease frequency, because the denominator no longer represents the population. Therefore, we can no longer compute the probability or rate of disease incidence in each exposure group. We also can't calculate a risk or rate difference measure for the same reason. However, as we have seen, we can compute the relative probability of disease in the exposed vs. unexposed group. The term generally used for this measure is an odds ratio , described in more detail later in the module.

Consequently, when the outcome is uncommon, as in this case, the risk ratio can be estimated much more efficiently by using a case-control design. One would focus first on finding an adequate number of cases in order to determine the ratio of exposed to unexposed cases. Then, one only needs to take a sample of the population in order to estimate the relative size of the exposed and unexposed components of the source population. Note that if one can identify all of the cases that were reported to a registry or other database within a defined period of time, then it is possible to compute an estimate of the incidence of disease if the size of the population is known from census data.   While this is conceptually possible, it is rarely done, and we will not discuss it further in this course.

A Nested Case-Control Study

Suppose a prospective cohort study were conducted among almost 90,000 women for the purpose of studying the determinants of cancer and cardiovascular disease. After enrollment, the women provide baseline information on a host of exposures, and they also provide baseline blood and urine samples that are frozen for possible future use. The women are then followed, and, after about eight years, the investigators want to test the hypothesis that past exposure to pesticides such as DDT is a risk factor for breast cancer. Eight years have passed since the beginning of the study, and 1.439 women in the cohort have developed breast cancer. Since they froze blood samples at baseline, they have the option of analyzing all of the blood samples in order to ascertain exposure to DDT at the beginning of the study before any cancers occurred. The problem is that there are almost 90,000 women and it would cost $20 to analyze each of the blood samples. If the investigators could have analyzed all 90,000 samples this is what they would have found the results in the table below.

Table of Breast Cancer Occurrence Among Women With or Without DDT Exposure

If they had been able to afford analyzing all of the baseline blood specimens in order to categorize the women as having had DDT exposure or not, they would have found a risk ratio = 1.87 (95% confidence interval: 1.66-2.10). The problem is that this would have cost almost $1.8 million, and the investigators did not have the funding to do this.

While 1,439 breast cancers is a disturbing number, it is only 1.6% of the entire cohort, so the outcome is relatively rare, and it is costing a lot of money to analyze the blood specimens obtained from all of the non-diseased women. There is, however, another more efficient alternative, i.e., to use a case-control sampling strategy. One could analyze all of the blood samples from women who had developed breast cancer, but only a sample of the whole cohort in order to estimate the exposure distribution in the population that produced the cases.

If one were to analyze the blood samples of 2,878 of the non-diseased women (twice as many as the number of cases), one would obtain results that would look something like those in the next table.

Odds of Exposure: 360/1079 in the cases versus 432/2,446 in the non-diseased controls.

Totals Samples analyzed = 1,438+2,878 = 4,316

Total Cost = 4,316 x $20 = $86,320

With this approach a similar estimate of risk was obtained after analyzing blood samples from only a small sample of the entire population at a fraction of the cost with hardly any loss in precision. In essence, a case-control strategy was used, but it was conducted within the context of a prospective cohort study. This is referred to as a case-control study "nested" within a cohort study.

Rothman states that one should look upon all case-control studies as being "nested" within a cohort. In other words the cohort represents the source population that gave rise to the cases. With a case-control sampling strategy one simply takes a sample of the population in order to obtain an estimate of the exposure distribution within the population that gave rise to the cases. Obviously, this is a much more efficient design.

It is important to note that, unlike cohort studies, case-control studies do not follow subjects through time. Cases are enrolled at the time they develop disease and controls are enrolled at the same time. The exposure status of each is determined, but they are not followed into the future for further development of disease.

As with cohort studies, case-control studies can be prospective or retrospective. At the start of the study, all cases might have already occurred and then this would be a retrospective case-control study. Alternatively, none of the cases might have already occurred, and new cases will be enrolled prospectively. Epidemiologists generally prefer the prospective approach because it has fewer biases, but it is more expensive and sometimes not possible. When conducted prospectively, or when nested in a prospective cohort study, it is straightforward to select controls from the population at risk. However, in retrospective case-control studies, it can be difficult to select from the population at risk, and controls are then selected from those in the population who didn't develop disease. Using only the non-diseased to select controls as opposed to the whole population means the denominator is not really a measure of disease frequency, but when the disease is rare , the odds ratio using the non-diseased will be very similar to the estimate obtained when the entire population is used to sample for controls. This phenomenon is known as the r are-disease assumption . When case-control studies were first developed, most were conducted retrospectively, and it is sometimes assumed that the rare-disease assumption applies to all case-control studies. However, it actually only applies to those case-control studies in which controls are sampled only from the non-diseased rather than the whole population.  

The difference between sampling from the whole population and only the non-diseased is that the whole population contains people both with and without the disease of interest. This means that a sampling strategy that uses the whole population as its source must allow for the fact that people who develop the disease of interest can be selected as controls. Students often have a difficult time with this concept. It is helpful to remember that it seems natural that the population denominator includes people who develop the disease in a cohort study. If a case-control study is a more efficient way to obtain the information from a cohort study, then perhaps it is not so strange that the denominator in a case-control study also can include people who develop the disease. This topic is covered in more detail in EP813 Intermediate Epidemiology.

Retrospective and Prospective Case-Control Studies

Students usually think of case-control studies as being only retrospective, since the investigators enroll subjects who have developed the outcome of interest. However, case-control studies, like cohort studies, can be either retrospective or prospective. In a prospective case-control study, the investigator still enrolls based on outcome status, but the investigator must wait to the cases to occur.

When is a Case-Control Study Desirable?

Given the greater efficiency of case-control studies, they are particularly advantageous in the following situations:

• When the disease or outcome being studied is rare.
• When the disease or outcome has a long induction and latent period (i.e., a long time between exposure and the eventual causal manifestation of disease).
• When exposure data is difficult or expensive to obtain.
• When the study population is dynamic.
• When little is known about the risk factors for the disease, case-control studies provide a way of testing associations with multiple potential risk factors. (This isn't really a unique advantage to case-control studies, however, since cohort studies can also assess multiple exposures.)

Another advantage of their greater efficiency, of course, is that they are less time-consuming and much less costly than prospective cohort studies.

The DES Case-Control Study

A classic example of the efficiency of the case-control approach is the study (Herbst et al.: N. Engl. J. Med. Herbst et al. (1971;284:878-81) that linked in-utero exposure to diethylstilbesterol (DES) with subsequent development of vaginal cancer 15-22 years later. In the late 1960s, physicians at MGH identified a very unusual cancer cluster. Eight young woman between the ages of 15-22 were found to have cancer of the vagina, an uncommon cancer even in elderly women. The cluster of cases in young women was initially reported as a case series, but there were no strong hypotheses about the cause.

In retrospect, the cause was in-utero exposure to DES. After World War II, DES started being prescribed for women who were having troubles with a pregnancy -- if there were signs suggesting the possibility of a miscarriage, DES was frequently prescribed. It has been estimated that between 1945-1950 DES was prescribed for about 20% of all pregnancies in the Boston area. Thus, the unborn fetus was exposed to DES in utero, and in a very small percentage of cases this resulted in development of vaginal cancer when the child was 15-22 years old (a very long latent period). There were several reasons why a case-control study was the only feasible way to identify this association: the disease was extremely rare (even in subjects who had been exposed to DES), there was a very long latent period between exposure and development of disease, and initially they had no idea what was responsible, so there were many possible exposures to consider.

In this situation, a case-control study was the only reasonable approach to identify the causative agent. Given how uncommon the outcome was, even a large prospective study would have been unlikely to have more than one or two cases, even after 15-20 years of follow-up. Similarly, a retrospective cohort study might have been successful in enrolling a large number of subjects, but the outcome of interest was so uncommon that few, if any, subjects would have had it. In contrast, a case-control study was conducted in which eight known cases and 32 age-matched controls provided information on many potential exposures. This strategy ultimately allowed the investigators to identify a highly significant association between the mother's treatment with DES during pregnancy and the eventual development of adenocarcinoma of the vagina in their daughters (in-utero at the time of exposure) 15 to 22 years later.

For more information see the DES Fact Sheet from the National Cancer Institute.

An excellent summary of this landmark study and the long-range effects of DES can be found in a Perspective article in the New England Journal of Medicine. A cohort of both mothers who took DES and their children (daughters and sons) was later formed to look for more common outcomes. Members of the faculty at BUSPH are on the team of investigators that follow this cohort for a variety of outcomes, particularly reproductive consequences and other cancers.

Selecting & Defining Cases and Controls

The "case" definition.

Careful thought should be given to the case definition to be used. If the definition is too broad or vague, it is easier to capture people with the outcome of interest, but a loose case definition will also capture people who do not have the disease. On the other hand, an overly restrictive case definition is employed, fewer cases will be captured, and the sample size may be limited. Investigators frequently wrestle with this problem during outbreak investigations. Initially, they will often use a somewhat broad definition in order to identify potential cases. However, as an outbreak investigation progresses, there is a tendency to narrow the case definition to make it more precise and specific, for example by requiring confirmation of the diagnosis by laboratory testing. In general, investigators conducting case-control studies should thoughtfully construct a definition that is as clear and specific as possible without being overly restrictive.

Investigators studying chronic diseases generally prefer newly diagnosed cases, because they tend to be more motivated to participate, may remember relevant exposures more accurately, and because it avoids complicating factors related to selection of longer duration (i.e., prevalent) cases. However, it is sometimes impossible to have an adequate sample size if only recent cases are enrolled.

Sources of Cases

Typical sources for cases include:

• Patient rosters at medical facilities
• Death certificates
• Disease registries (e.g., cancer or birth defect registries; the SEER Program [Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results] is a federally funded program that identifies newly diagnosed cases of cancer in population-based registries across the US )
• Cross-sectional surveys (e.g., NHANES, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey)

Selection of the Controls

As noted above, it is always useful to think of a case-control study as being nested within some sort of a cohort, i.e., a source population that produced the cases that were identified and enrolled. In view of this there are two key principles that should be followed in selecting controls:

• The comparison group ("controls") should be representative of the source population that produced the cases.
• The "controls" must be sampled in a way that is independent of the exposure, meaning that their selection should not be more (or less) likely if they have the exposure of interest.

If either of these principles are not adhered to, selection bias can result (as discussed in detail in the module on Bias).

Note that in the earlier example of a case-control study conducted in the Massachusetts population, we specified that our sampling method was random so that exposed and unexposed members of the population had an equal chance of being selected. Therefore, we would expect that about 1,000 would be exposed and 5,000 unexposed (the same ratio as in the whole population), and came up with an odds ratio that was same as the hypothetical risk ratio we would have had if we had collected exposure information from the whole population of six million:

What if we had instead been more likely to sample those who were exposed, so that we instead found 1,500 exposed and 4,500 unexposed among the 6,000 controls?   Then the odds ratio would have been:

This odds ratio is biased because it differs from the true odds ratio.   In this case, the bias stemmed from the fact that we violated the second principle in selection of controls. Depending on which category is over or under-sampled, this type of bias can result in either an underestimate or an overestimate of the true association.

A hypothetical case-control study was conducted to determine whether lower socioeconomic status (the exposure) is associated with a higher risk of cervical cancer (the outcome). The "cases" consisted of 250 women with cervical cancer who were referred to Massachusetts General Hospital for treatment for cervical cancer. They were referred from all over the state. The cases were asked a series of questions relating to socioeconomic status (household income, employment, education, etc.). The investigators identified control subjects by going door-to-door in the community around MGH from 9:00 AM to 5:00  PM. Many residents are not home, but they persist and eventually enroll enough controls. The problem is that the controls were selected by a different mechanism than the cases, AND the selection mechanism may have tended to select individuals of different socioeconomic status, since women who were at home may have been somewhat more likely to be unemployed. In other words, the controls were more likely to be enrolled (selected) if they had the exposure of interest (lower socioeconomic status). 

Sources for "Controls"

Population controls:.

A population-based case-control study is one in which the cases come from a precisely defined population, such as a fixed geographic area, and the controls are sampled directly from the same population. In this situation cases might be identified from a state cancer registry, for example, and the comparison group would logically be selected at random from the same source population. Population controls can be identified from voter registration lists, tax rolls, drivers license lists, and telephone directories or by "random digit dialing". Population controls may also be more difficult to obtain, however, because of lack of interest in participating, and there may be recall bias, since population controls are generally healthy and may remember past exposures less accurately.

Example of a Population-based Case-Control Study: Rollison et al. reported on a "Population-based Case-Control Study of Diabetes and Breast Cancer Risk in Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Women Living in US Southwestern States". (ALink to the article - Citation: Am J Epidemiol 2008;167:447–456).

"Briefly, a population-based case-control study of breast cancer was conducted in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and selected counties of Arizona. For investigation of differences in the breast cancer risk profiles of non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanics, sampling was stratified by race/ethnicity, and only women who self-reported their race as non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, or American Indian were eligible, with the exception of American Indian women living on reservations. Women diagnosed with histologically confirmed breast cancer between October 1999 and May 2004 (International Classification of Diseases for Oncology codes C50.0–C50.6 and C50.8–C50.9) were identified as cases through population-based cancer registries in each state."

"Population-based controls were frequency-matched to cases in 5-year age groups. In New Mexico and Utah, control participants under age 65 years were randomly selected from driver's license lists; in Arizona and Colorado, controls were randomly selected from commercial mailing lists, since driver's license lists were unavailable. In all states, women aged 65 years or older were randomly selected from the lists of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Social Security lists). Of all women contacted, 68 percent of cases and 42 percent of controls participated in the study."

"Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using logistic regression, adjusting for age, body mass index at age 15 years, and parity. Having any type of diabetes was not associated with breast cancer overall (odds ratio = 0.94, 95% confidence interval: 0.78, 1.12). Type 2 diabetes was observed among 19% of Hispanics and 9% of non-Hispanic Whites but was not associated with breast cancer in either group."

In this example, it is clear that the controls were selected from the source population (principle 1), but less clear that they were enrolled independent of exposure status (principle 2), both because drivers' licenses were used for selection and because the participation rate among controls was low. These factors would only matter if they impacted on the estimate of the proportion of the population who had diabetes.

Hospital or Clinic Controls:

• They have diseases that are unrelated to the exposure being studied. For example, for a study examining the association between smoking and lung cancer, it would not be appropriate to include patients with cardiovascular disease as control, since smoking is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. To include such patients as controls would result in an underestimate of the true association.
• Second, control patients in the comparison should have diseases with similar referral patterns as the cases, in order to minimize selection bias. For example, if the cases are women with cervical cancer who have been referred from all over the state, it would be inappropriate to use controls consisting of women with diabetes who had been referred primarily from local health centers in the immediate vicinity of the hospital. Similarly, it would be inappropriate to use patients from the emergency room, because the selection of a hospital for an emergency is different than for cancer, and this difference might be related to the exposure of interest.

The advantages of using controls who are patients from the same facility are:

• They are easier to identify
• They are more likely to participate than general population controls.
• They minimize selection bias because they generally come from the same source population (provided referral patterns are similar).
• Recall bias would be minimized, because they are sick, but with a different diagnosis.

Example: Several years ago the vascular surgeons at Boston Medical Center wanted to study risk factors for severe atherosclerosis of the lower extremities. The cases were patients who were referred to the hospital for elective surgery to bypass severe atherosclerotic blockages in the arteries to the legs. The controls consisted of patients who were admitted to the same hospital for elective joint replacement of the hip or knee. The patients undergoing joint replacement were similar in age and they also were following the same referral pathways. In other words, they met the "would" criterion: if one of the joint replacement surgery patients had developed severe atherosclerosis in their leg arteries, they would have been referred to the same hospital.

Friend, Neighbor, Spouse, and Relative Controls:

Occasionally investigators will ask cases to nominate controls who are in one of these categories, because they have similar characteristics, such as genotype, socioeconomic status, or environment, i.e., factors that can cause confounding, but are hard to measure and adjust for. By matching cases and controls on these factors, confounding by these factors will be controlled.   However, one must be careful that the controls satisfy the two fundamental principles. Often, they do not.

How Many Controls?

Since case-control studies are often used for uncommon outcomes, investigators often have a limited number of cases but a plentiful supply of potential controls. In this situation the statistical power of the study can be increased somewhat by enrolling more controls than cases. However, the additional power that is achieved diminishes as the ratio of controls to cases increases, and ratios greater than 4:1 have little additional impact on power. Consequently, if it is time-consuming or expensive to collect data on controls, the ratio of controls to cases should be no more than 4:1. However, if the data on controls is easily obtained, there is no reason to limit the number of controls.

Methods of Control Sampling

There are three strategies for selecting controls that are best explained by considering the nested case-control study described on page 3 of this module:

• Survivor sampling: This is the most common method. Controls consist of individuals from the source population who do not have the outcome of interest.
• Case-base sampling (also known as "case-cohort" sampling): Controls are selected from the population at risk at the beginning of the follow-up period in the cohort study within which the case-control study was nested.
• Risk Set Sampling: In the nested case-control study a control would be selected from the population at risk at the point in time when a case was diagnosed.

The Rare Outcome Assumption

It is often said that an odds ratio provides a good estimate of the risk ratio only when the outcome of interest is rare, but this is only true when survivor sampling is used. With case-base sampling or risk set sampling, the odds ratio will provide a good estimate of the risk ratio regardless of the frequency of the outcome, because the controls will provide an accurate estimate of the distribution in the source population (i.e., not just in non-diseased people).

More on Selection Bias

Always consider the source population for case-control studies, i.e. the "population" that generated the cases. The cases are always identified and enrolled by some method or a set of procedures or circumstances. For example, cases with a certain disease might be referred to a particular tertiary hospital for specialized treatment. Alternatively, if there is a database or a disease registry for a geographic area, cases might be selected at random from the database. The key to avoiding selection bias is to select the controls by a similar, if not identical, mechanism in order to ensure that the controls provide an accurate representation of the exposure status of the source population.

Example 1: In the first example above, in which cases were randomly selected from a geographically defined database, the source population is also defined geographically, so it would make sense to select population controls by some random method. In contrast, if one enrolled controls from a particular hospital within the geographic area, one would have to at least consider whether the controls were inherently more or less likely to have the exposure of interest. If so, they would not provide an accurate estimate of the exposure distribution of the source population, and selection bias would result.

Example 2: In the second example above, the source population was defined by the patterns of referral to a particular hospital for a particular disease. In order for the controls to be representative of the "population" that produced those cases, the controls should be selected by a similar mechanism, e.g., by contacting the referring health care providers and asking them to provide the names of potential controls. By this mechanism, one can ensure that the controls are representative of the source population, because if they had had the disease of interest they would have been just as likely as the cases to have been included in the case group (thus fulfilling the "would" criterion).

Example 3: A food handler at a delicatessen who is infected with hepatitis A virus is responsible for an outbreak of hepatitis which is largely confined to the surrounding community from which most of the customers come. Many (but not all) of the infected cases are identified by passive and active surveillance. How should controls be selected? In this situation, one might guess that the likelihood of people going to the delicatessen would be heavily influenced by their proximity to it, and this would to a large extent define the source population. In a case-control study undertaken to identify the source, the delicatessen is one of the exposures being tested. Consequently, even if the cases were reported to the state-wide surveillance system, it would not be appropriate to randomly select controls from the state, the county, or even the town where the delicatessen is located. In other words, the "would" criterion doesn't work here, because anyone in the state with clinical hepatitis would end up in the surveillance system, but someone who lived far from the deli would have a much lower likelihood of having the exposure. A better approach would be to select controls who were matched to the cases by neighborhood, age, and gender. These controls would have similar access to go to the deli if they chose to, and they would therefore be more representative of the source population.

Analysis of Case-Control Studies

The computation and interpretation of the odds ratio in a case-control study has already been discussed in the modules on Overview of Analytic Studies and Measures of Association. Additionally, one can compute the confidence interval for the odds ratio, and statistical significance can also be evaluated by using a chi-square test (or a Fisher's Exact Test if the sample size is small) to compute a p-value. These calculations can be done using the Case-Control worksheet in the Excel file called EpiTools.XLS.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Case-Control Studies

Advantages:

• They are efficient for rare diseases or diseases with a long latency period between exposure and disease manifestation.
• They are less costly and less time-consuming; they are advantageous when exposure data is expensive or hard to obtain.
• They are advantageous when studying dynamic populations in which follow-up is difficult.

Disadvantages:

• They are subject to selection bias.
• They are inefficient for rare exposures.
• Information on exposure is subject to observation bias.
• They generally do not allow calculation of incidence (absolute risk).

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• What Is a Case-Control Study? | Definition & Examples

What Is a Case-Control Study? | Definition & Examples

Published on 4 February 2023 by Tegan George .

A case-control study is an experimental design that compares a group of participants possessing a condition of interest to a very similar group lacking that condition. Here, the participants possessing the attribute of study, such as a disease, are called the ‘case’, and those without it are the ‘control’.

It’s important to remember that the case group is chosen because they already possess the attribute of interest. The point of the control group is to facilitate investigation, e.g., studying whether the case group systematically exhibits that attribute more than the control group does.

Table of contents

When to use a case-control study, examples of case-control studies, advantages and disadvantages of case-control studies, frequently asked questions.

Case-control studies are a type of observational study often used in fields like medical research, environmental health, or epidemiology. While most observational studies are qualitative in nature, case-control studies can also be quantitative , and they often are in healthcare settings. Case-control studies can be used for both exploratory and explanatory research , and they are a good choice for studying research topics like disease exposure and health outcomes.

A case-control study may be a good fit for your research if it meets the following criteria.

• Data on exposure (e.g., to a chemical or a pesticide) are difficult to obtain or expensive.
• The disease associated with the exposure you’re studying has a long incubation period or is rare or under-studied (e.g., AIDS in the early 1980s).
• The population you are studying is difficult to contact for follow-up questions (e.g., asylum seekers).

Retrospective cohort studies use existing secondary research data, such as medical records or databases, to identify a group of people with a common exposure or risk factor and to observe their outcomes over time. Case-control studies conduct primary research , comparing a group of participants possessing a condition of interest to a very similar group lacking that condition in real time.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Case-control studies are common in fields like epidemiology, healthcare, and psychology.

You would then collect data on your participants’ exposure to contaminated drinking water,   focusing on variables such as the source of said water and the duration of exposure,   for both groups. You could then compare the two to determine if there is a relationship between drinking water contamination and the risk of developing a gastrointestinal illness. Example: Healthcare case-control study You are interested in the relationship between the dietary intake of a particular vitamin (e.g., vitamin D) and the risk of developing osteoporosis later in life. Here, the case group would be individuals who have been diagnosed with osteoporosis, while the control group would be individuals without osteoporosis.

You would then collect information on dietary intake of vitamin D for both the cases and controls and compare the two groups to determine if there is a relationship between vitamin D intake and the risk of developing osteoporosis. Example: Psychology case-control study You are studying the relationship between early-childhood stress and the likelihood of later developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Here, the case group would be individuals who have been diagnosed with PTSD, while the control group would be individuals without PTSD.

Case-control studies are a solid research method choice, but they come with distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages of case-control studies

• Case-control studies are a great choice if you have any ethical considerations about your participants that could preclude you from using a traditional experimental design .
• Case-control studies are time efficient and fairly inexpensive to conduct because they require fewer subjects than other research methods .
• If there were multiple exposures leading to a single outcome, case-control studies can incorporate that. As such, they truly shine when used to study rare outcomes or outbreaks of a particular disease .

Disadvantages of case-control studies

• Case-control studies, similarly to observational studies, run a high risk of research biases . They are particularly susceptible to observer bias , recall bias , and interviewer bias.
• In the case of very rare exposures of the outcome studied, attempting to conduct a case-control study can be very time consuming and inefficient .
• Case-control studies in general have low internal validity  and are not always credible.

Case-control studies by design focus on one singular outcome. This makes them very rigid and not generalisable , as no extrapolation can be made about other outcomes like risk recurrence or future exposure threat. This leads to less satisfying results than other methodological choices.

A case-control study differs from a cohort study because cohort studies are more longitudinal in nature and do not necessarily require a control group .

While one may be added if the investigator so chooses, members of the cohort are primarily selected because of a shared characteristic among them. In particular, retrospective cohort studies are designed to follow a group of people with a common exposure or risk factor over time and observe their outcomes.

Case-control studies, in contrast, require both a case group and a control group, as suggested by their name, and usually are used to identify risk factors for a disease by comparing cases and controls.

A case-control study differs from a cross-sectional study because case-control studies are naturally retrospective in nature, looking backward in time to identify exposures that may have occurred before the development of the disease.

On the other hand, cross-sectional studies collect data on a population at a single point in time. The goal here is to describe the characteristics of the population, such as their age, gender identity, or health status, and understand the distribution and relationships of these characteristics.

Cases and controls are selected for a case-control study based on their inherent characteristics. Participants already possessing the condition of interest form the “case,” while those without form the “control.”

Keep in mind that by definition the case group is chosen because they already possess the attribute of interest. The point of the control group is to facilitate investigation, e.g., studying whether the case group systematically exhibits that attribute more than the control group does.

The strength of the association between an exposure and a disease in a case-control study can be measured using a few different statistical measures , such as odds ratios (ORs) and relative risk (RR).

No, case-control studies cannot establish causality as a standalone measure.

As observational studies , they can suggest associations between an exposure and a disease, but they cannot prove without a doubt that the exposure causes the disease. In particular, issues arising from timing, research biases like recall bias , and the selection of variables lead to low internal validity and the inability to determine causality.

Sources for this article

We strongly encourage students to use sources in their work. You can cite our article (APA Style) or take a deep dive into the articles below.

George, T. (2023, February 04). What Is a Case-Control Study? | Definition & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 26 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/case-control-studies/

Schlesselman, J. J. (1982). Case-Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis (Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 2) (Illustrated). Oxford University Press.

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is an observational study | guide & examples, control groups and treatment groups | uses & examples, cross-sectional study | definitions, uses & examples.

You need to enable JavaScript to run this app.

Search our Collections & Repository

• Advanced Search
• Custom Query

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Publication Date Range:

Document Type:

Collection:

Query Builder

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

Tinea pedis, peripheral vascular disease, and male gender are associated with higher odds of onychomycosis in a retrospective case-control study of 1257 onychodystrophy patients

• Source: J Am Acad Dermatol. 91(3):549-552
• Alternative Title: J Am Acad Dermatol
• Personal Author: Axler, Eden ; Katsiaunis, Apostolos ; Charla, Joseph N. ; Gold, Jeremy A. W. ; Lipner, Shari R. Axler, Eden ; Katsiaunis, Apostolos ; Charla, Joseph N. ; Gold, Jeremy A. W. ; Lipner, Shari R. Less -
• Subjects: [+] Adult Aged Case-Control Studies Female Humans Male Middle Aged Onychomycosis Peripheral Vascular Diseases Retrospective Studies Sex Factors Tinea Pedis
• Keywords: [+] Nail Clipping Nail Dystrophy Onychomycosis Risk Factor Tinea Pedis
• Pubmed ID: 38754629
• Pubmed Central ID: PMC11343646
• Document Type: Journal Article
• Funding: CC999999/ImCDC/Intramural CDC HHSUnited States/
• Collection(s): CDC Public Access
• Main Document Checksum: [+] urn:sha-512:4e016a98bfb14c85ba1c9dec4285a5d5839c11e2760dfbc215c6337fdec0e266518935f0e46d49d08ff433c2c080e72a10ae235ba328eb99533abaa626423767
• Supporting Files: No Additional Files

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov

Exit Notification/Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal Website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private websites.

• Article Information

All HRs are adjusted for education, income, cohabitation, hypertension, diabetes, and thyroid disease at index date. “Never use” comprised women who had never received estrogen-progestin hormone treatment, including vaginal estrogen treatment, or progestin-only treatment (including the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device) from aged 45 to 55 years until index date.

a For the comparison of different routes of administration and daily doses, only estradiol use was considered. Estradiol use composed approximately 90% of person-time with estrogen-only therapy.

eTable. Data Sources and Definitions

eReferences.

Data Sharing Statement

• Estrogen-Only Hormone Therapy and Dementia—Reply JAMA Comment & Response May 14, 2024 Nelsan Pourhadi, MD; Lina S. Mørch, PhD; Amani Meaidi, PhD
• Estrogen-Only Hormone Therapy and Dementia JAMA Comment & Response May 14, 2024 Madeline Wood Alexander, BA; Gillian Einstein, PhD; Jennifer S. Rabin, PhD, CPsych
• Estrogen-Only Hormone Therapy and Dementia JAMA Comment & Response May 14, 2024 Sarah Glynne, MBBS, MSc

See More About

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Others Also Liked

• Download PDF
• X Facebook More LinkedIn

Pourhadi N , Mørch LS , Holm EA , Torp-Pedersen C , Meaidi A. Dementia in Women Using Estrogen-Only Therapy. JAMA. 2024;331(2):160–162. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.23784

Manage citations:

© 2024

• Permissions

Dementia in Women Using Estrogen-Only Therapy

• 1 Danish Dementia Research Centre, Copenhagen University Hospital–Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
• 2 Cancer Surveillance and Pharmacoepidemiology, Danish Cancer Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark
• 3 Department of Medicine, Zealand University Hospital, Køge, Denmark
• 4 Department of Cardiology, Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark
• Comment & Response Estrogen-Only Hormone Therapy and Dementia—Reply Nelsan Pourhadi, MD; Lina S. Mørch, PhD; Amani Meaidi, PhD JAMA
• Comment & Response Estrogen-Only Hormone Therapy and Dementia Madeline Wood Alexander, BA; Gillian Einstein, PhD; Jennifer S. Rabin, PhD, CPsych JAMA
• Comment & Response Estrogen-Only Hormone Therapy and Dementia Sarah Glynne, MBBS, MSc JAMA

Conjugated equine estrogen was associated with increased dementia risk in a randomized clinical trial of women who had undergone hysterectomy, aged 65 years and older in 1996 to 1999. 1 These findings are less relevant in contemporary clinical settings, where hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms is initiated near menopause and short term. 2

We assessed association between estrogen-only use and dementia.

Using national Danish registers, we performed a nested case-control study of women with hysterectomy, aged 50 to 60 years in 2000, and without previous dementia, oophorectomy, or contraindications for menopausal hormone therapy (eTable in Supplement 1 ). Women were followed from January 1, 2000, until December 31, 2018, death, emigration, or an exclusion criterion.

In Denmark, dementia is typically diagnosed in hospital memory clinics, 3 although it can be diagnosed in primary care. Outcome was first-time diagnosis of all-cause dementia or prescription redemption of antidementia medication, the latter allowing identification of patients treated in primary care (eTable in Supplement 1 ). On date of dementia (index date), each case patient was incidence-density matched by birth year to 5 dementia-free control participants.

Estrogen-only use was assessed through prescriptions from 1995 until 2 years before index date to diminish potential reverse causation bias. Based on individual-level data on time, amount, route, and type of estrogen-only therapy, cumulative duration of use (≤5 years; >5 years) and mean daily dose (<2 mg; 2-<3 mg; ≥3 mg) were computed.

Conditional logistic regression was used to assess associations between cumulative duration of estrogen-only therapy and between dose and route of estradiol and incident dementia. The latter models included only estradiol because estrogens’ potencies vary. Reference group constituted never users of any hormone therapy.

Subanalyses assessed women solely exposed at aged 55 years or younger to assess current recommendations for hormone therapy use near menopause 2 and cases with specifically Alzheimer disease diagnosis. Models included age, education, income, cohabitation, thyroid disease, hypertension, and diabetes as potential confounders (eTable in Supplement 1 ).

Linear trend tests were performed to assess associations between dose and dementia 4 ; 95% CIs not crossing 1 and 2-sided P  < .05 defined statistical significance. R statistical software (R Core Team, 2020) was used. The Danish Data Protection Agency and The Danish Health Data Authority approved the study. Danish register-based studies do not require ethics approval or patient consent.

We followed 29 104 women with hysterectomy for 500 000 person-years. Median age at hysterectomy was 43 years (IQR, 39-47 years). During follow-up, 541 women developed dementia (Alzheimer disease, 92) and were matched to 2705 controls; 13.9% were identified only by use of antidementia medication. Median age at diagnosis was 70 years (IQR, 66-73 years) ( Table ). Estrogen-only users constituted 53.2% of cases and 45.0% of controls; users aged 55 years or younger constituted 15.6% and 12.3%, respectively. Median age at treatment initiation was 53 years (IQR, 51-54 years). Median treatment duration among users was 5.4 years (IQR, 1.3-8.8 years) for cases and 5.1 years (IQR, 1.7-8.6 years) for controls. Estradiol use composed 94% (9266 of 9858 person-years) of person-time with estrogen-only therapy, and of this, 81% (7487 person-years) was oral and 19% (1779 person-years) transdermal.

Estrogen-only vs never use was associated with increased dementia rate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.55; 95% CI, 1.25-1.93); HR was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.15-1.93) for 5 years use or less and 1.62 (95% CI, 1.25-2.09) for greater than 5 years’ use. Increasing daily estradiol dose yielded increasing HRs ( P trend < .003) ( Figure ). Oral estradiol HR was 1.62 (95% CI, 1.28-2.05); and transdermal, 1.39 (95% CI, 0.97-1.99).

The association persisted in women using estrogen only until a maximum of aged 55 years (HR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.06-2.35). Alzheimer disease HR was 1.79 (95% CI, 0.99-3.23).

Estrogen-only use was associated with increased dementia rate even in women exposed near menopause, confirming findings from the large randomized clinical trial 1 but in a more contemporary population reflecting actual use.

Limitations include that residual confounding, including confounding by indication, could occur. Numbers of women receiving transdermal estradiol and higher doses were small. Alzheimer disease was underregistered because unspecific dementia diagnoses tended to be used during the study. An unknown number of patients with diagnoses and treatment by primary care without medications were missed, although these should not be differentially distributed among estrogen users and nonusers.

Studies are warranted to ascertain whether findings represent a causal link between estrogen-only use and dementia risk or predisposition among women needing therapy.

Accepted for Publication: October 28, 2023.

Published Online: December 18, 2023. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.23784

Corresponding Author: Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, Danish Dementia Research Centre, Department of Neurology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 København Ø, Denmark ( [email protected] ).

Author Contributions: Drs Pourhadi and Meaidi had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Pourhadi, Mørch, Torp-Pedersen, Meaidi.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Pourhadi, Meaidi.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Pourhadi, Torp-Pedersen, Meaidi.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Pourhadi, Torp-Pedersen, Meaidi.

Supervision: Mørch, Holm, Torp-Pedersen, Meaidi.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Mørch reported receiving grants from Health Insurance “Denmark,” the Danish Cancer Society Scientific Committee, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work; and reported being vice chair of the Danish Society for Pharmacoepidemiology and a representative for the Nordic PharmacoEpidemiological Network. Dr Torp-Pedersen reported receiving grants from Bayer for a randomized study and grants from Novo Nordisk for an epidemiologic study outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2 .

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

• Open access
• Published: 22 August 2024

Bile acid diarrhoea and metabolic changes after cholecystectomy: a prospective case-control study

• Alexia Farrugia   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4366-9068 1 ,
• Nigel Williams 2 ,
• Saboor Khan 2 &
• Ramesh P. Arasaradnam   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2231-3062 3  

BMC Gastroenterology volume  24 , Article number:  282 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

95 Accesses

Metrics details

Introduction

Bile acid diarrhoea (BAD) can occur due to disruption to the enterohepatic circulation such as following cholecystectomy. However, the mechanism behind this is as yet unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of post-cholecystectomy diarrhoea and to assess whether FGF19 within the gallbladder was associated with the development of BAD.

This was a prospective case-control study in which patients were assessed pre- and post- cholecystectomy (study group) and compared with patients also having laparoscopic surgery but not cholecystectomy (control group). Their bowel habits and a GIQLI questionnaire was performed to compare the pre- and post-operative condition of the two groups. Gallbladder tissue sample was tested for FGF19 and PPARα in the study group patients. A subset had serum lipid levels, FGF19 and C4 measurements.

Gallbladder PPAR α was found to have a significant correlation with stool consistency, with the lower the PPARα concentration the higher the Bristol stool chart number (i.e. looser stool). There were no significant correlation when assessing the effect of gallbladder FGF19 concentration on bowel habit, stool consistency, lipid levels, BMI or smoking. The study group showed a significant increase in triglycerides post-operatively, however there were no changes in cholesterol, HDL and LDL levels. Correlation of the increased triglyceride levels with stool consistency and frequency showed no significant results

Discussion and conclusion

We did not find any direct evidence that FGF19 levels within the gallbladder impact the development of post-cholecystectomy diarrhoea. There was however a significant increase in triglycerides postoperatively. There was also no correlation of bowel habits with PPARα suggesting the observed rise is independent of this pathway. Further work is required particularly relating to the gut microbiome to further investigate this condition.

Peer Review reports

The role of bile acids (BA) within the body is to aid in digestion of fatty acids, where they are released into the duodenum after stimulation of the gallbladder by cholecystokinin. They are then reabsorbed from the terminal ileum. This reabsorption is controlled by two negative feedback loops in which fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF19) is an essential factor in inhibiting bile acid synthesis [ 1 ]. In one loop FGF19 inhibits bile acid synthesis by activating Farnesoid X receptor (FXR), and in the other loop it binds Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 4 (FGFR4) in the hepatocytes. Both lead to inhibition of cholesterol 7 alpha hydroxylase enzyme (CYP7A1), which is the rate limiting step in bile acid synthesis [ 1 , 2 ]. Interruption of these feedback loops, or overwhelming them, can cause bile acid diarrhoea (BAD), which could be either primary or secondary. Primary bile acid diarrhoea is idiopathic while secondary tends to occur after other conditions such as cholecystectomy [ 3 ]. When the negative feedback mechanism is disrupted, as occurs in bile acid diarrhoea, the activity of CYP7A1 is increased and there is a six- to seven-fold increase in the synthesis of bile acids [ 4 ]. The absorptive capacity of the terminal ileum is exceeded due to large amounts of bile acids and therefore this leads to diarrhoea [ 5 ].

The 75 SeHCAT test, which is used to measure bile acid retention, is the gold standard for diagnosing BAD. A value of < 15% retention is indicative of BAD [ 5 ]. However, it is often impractical, therefore other diagnostic tools for BAD are used, which include measurement of serum C4. This is a direct measure of bile acid synthesis and is increased in BAD, therefore it can be used in cases of 75 SEHCAT unavailability [ 6 ].

Hypertriglyceridaemia has been linked to increased bile acid synthesis and higher triglyceride levels are associated with lower 75 SeHCAT retention levels. It has been demonstrated that primary bile acid diarrhoea was significantly associated with higher triglyceride levels [ 7 ]. Post-cholecystectomy there is faster circulation of BA, resulting in negative feedback and therefore lower triglyceride levels [ 8 , 9 ]. However, there is conflicting information as some studies show no change in lipid levels, including any difference between patients who develop post cholecystectomy diarrhoea and those who do not [ 10 ].

Lower FGF 19 levels, which normally occurs in BAD, causes inhibition of short heterodimer primer (SHP) which leads to higher triglyceride levels and therefore increased bile acid synthesis, leading to increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) uptake. Lack of FXR activation also means that LDL activity is also increased, and these factors work together resulting in hypertriglyceridaemia [ 11 ]. Patients with hypertiglyceridaemia have impaired intestinal BA absorption due to reduced expression of apical sodium-dependent bile acid transporter (ASBT) which is involved in BA uptake, therefore leading to reduced FGF19 levels and reduced negative feedback on bile acid synthesis [ 12 ]. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα) decreases triglyceride levels by causing free fatty acid oxidation and is activated by increased FXR levels. Thus, in BAD where FXR is not activated there is lack of PPARα activation and patients have hypertriglyceridaemia.

The aims of the study were to determine the frequency of bile acid diarrhoea and whether there is a change in bowel habit, including stool consistency after laparoscopic cholecystectomy and if there was any correlation to any metabolic changes, including gallbladder FGF19 or SHP and serum C4 and FGF19. The secondary aims were to determine the change in lipid levels (LDL, HDL and triglycerides) post-cholecystectomy and the mechanism behind this change along with its relationship to the development of bile acid diarrhoea, and whether gallbladder PPARα is associated with any change in lipid levels.

Approval was gained from the ethics committee and the Health research authority for a case control study comparing two groups (Ref 18/EM/0395). This was a prospective study and the study period was from September 2019 to March 2020. The study was performed at University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire. The study group consisted of those undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The age-matched control group also had diagnostic laparoscopic surgery. These were mainly patients undergoing laparoscopic Nissen fundoplications, laparoscopic hernia repair, and laparoscopic bariatric surgery. All patients who were having cancer surgery were excluded, as well as those under the age of 18.

Stool frequency and consistency (using the Bristol stool chart) were recorded at the pre-operative stage as well as three months postoperatively. They were also given the option to have blood tests taken for measurement of lipid levels (control and study group), C4 and FGF19 (study group only) again before and three months after surgery. 11 patients from the study group and 9 patients from the control group took this option. Those patients having cholecystectomy were also asked for a gallbladder sample when it was removed. All patients in the study group took this option. The gallbladder tissue was tested for FGF19 and PPARα via ELISA (enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay) testing. Anyone who developed diarrhoea as per the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) criteria (which is defined as persisting alteration from normal stool, with a Bristol stool type form 5 to 7, for more than 4 weeks), was offered a 75 SeHCAT scan and a colonoscopy with ileal biopsy [ 13 ].

A sample size of 110 was determined using a power calculation based on post-cholecystectomy diarrhoea rates from previous studies. Unfortunately, the study had to be stopped prior to reaching the sample size due to service re-distribution during the COVID pandemic. Age, sex and BMI of the two groups were compared using a Chi-squared test. Differences in lipid levels between the groups were assessed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. Correlations between lipid levels, C4 levels and FGF19 levels and bowel habit and GIQLI questionnaire scores were performed using a Spearman’s correlation coefficient. IBM SPSS statistical software version 23 was used to perform statistical analysis and GraphPad PRISM version 10.1.0 was used for graphics.

The two groups were analysed for demographic differences. There were no significant differences in the age, sex and BMI between the two groups, p  = 0.316, p  = 0.094 and p  = 0.279 respectively, using a Chi-squared test. These are shown in Table  1 below. Of the 40 patients in the study group, 36 were followed up and four developed BAD (11.1%), diagnosed via 75 SeHCAT scan.

Metabolic parameters

There were no significant differences between pre- and post-op level of cholesterol ( p  = 0.812) HDL ( p  = 0.944), and LDL ( p  = 0.082). There was a significant difference in pre- and post- operative triglyceride levels ( p  = 0.021). Triglyceride levels were significantly increased post operatively, as the mean (+/- confidence interval) pre-op was 1.25 (+/- 0.4) mmol/L and the average (+/- confidence interval) post-op was 2.07 (+/- 1.1) mmol/L. There were no significant differences in cholesterol, HDL, triglyceride or LDL levels in the pre- and post-operative period for the control group. These are shown in Fig.  1 .

Lipid levels, study group, expressed as median and IQR

There is a general trend in increasing FGF19 plasma concentration levels postoperatively. There was found to be a significant difference between the pre- and postoperative fasting plasma FGF19 levels ( p  = 0.043), with the levels being significantly higher post op. There was no correlation between the change that occurred in plasma FGF19 levels and change in stool consistency ( p  = 0.40), change in bowel habit ( p  = 0.99) or change in GIQLI scores ( p  = 0.1). There were no significant differences in the pre- and post-op C4 levels ( p  = 0.18). There was also no correlation between change in C4 levels and change in bowel habit, stool consistency and GIQLI results ( p  = 0.72, p  = 0.23, and p  = 0.071 respectively). These are seen in Fig.  2 .

Plasma FGF19 and C4 levels, expressed as median and IQR

Gallbladder tissue

We tested for correlation between FGF19 concentration in gallbladder tissue and change in bowel habit, stool consistency, BMI and smoking status. These tests revealed no significant correlation ( p  = 0.124, p  = 0.173, p  = 0.424 and p  = 0.523 respectively). The mean concentration of FGF 19 in pg/ml was also correlated to the change in triglyceride levels. There was no significant correlation between the two variables ( p  = 0.581). Analysis of whether there was a relationship between the change in plasma FGF19 levels and the gallbladder FGF19 concentration was performed and found to be negative ( p  = 0.65). They are shown in Fig.  3 .

Bowel habits, expressed as median and IQR

We also tested for correlation between PPARα concentration and change in bowel habit and triglyceride levels and again there was no significant correlation ( p  = 0.12 and p  = 0.748 respectively). However, there was a significant correlation with change in stool consistency ( p  = 0.003), showing a lower concentration with higher Bristol stool chart value (looser stool).

When looking at metabolic parameters, an interesting point to note was that the FGF19 levels were significantly higher postoperatively and there is a generally increasing trend of FGF19 levels in plasma postoperatively. The increased concentration of FGF19 could be due to possible negative feedback post-gallbladder removal, as there is no longer a ‘storage system’ for bile acids. Thus, these are continuously being released into the small bowel and triggering more FGF19 transcription in the terminal ileum. It would be interesting to see whether this would be consistent with a larger cohort. There has been similar published data which found a significant difference post-operatively without the patients being given a meal, however there has also been a similar study with 18 patients which did not find any difference in the FGF19 levels post-cholecystectomy initially which changed once patients were given a meal [ 14 ].

When analysing C4 levels, there were no significant correlations to bowel habit, stool consistency and GIQLI results. There were also no significant differences in C4 levels pre- and post-op. This is interesting as C4 levels would be expected to be higher post-operatively to reflect increased bile acid production, as has been previously reported [ 10 ]. However, in Sauter’s data the increase in levels was not statistically significant so it is difficult to assess. They also did not report any changes associated with bowel habits. The study by Borup et al. also did not find any significant differences in pre- and post- operative C4 levels [ 14 ].

The overall increased FGF19 levels would imply a reduction in bile acid synthesis via a negative feedback loop, with FGF19 acting on FXR within the liver [ 3 ]. However, the increased C4 levels would actually indicate an increase in bile acid synthesis [ 6 ]. As there were no significant differences in stool frequency and consistency within the study group it may be that the increase in FGF19 was not enough to effect a change in the bowel habit of this population. The increase in C4 level may be explained by the increase in enterohepatic cycles post-removal of the gallbladder. FGF19 also has a diurnal variation and therefore it may be that this may have been affected by cholecystectomy [ 15 ].

While FGF19 is present within the gallbladder, its function within this organ is unknown. We postulated that since FGF19 is also secreted by the gallbladder, a higher FGF19 concentration in the gallbladder may result in the development of bile acid diarrhoea once it is removed due to a potential role in this negative feedback loop [ 16 ]. However, there were no significant correlations between FGF19 concentration within the gallbladder and the changes in bowel habits exhibited by the patients. This may imply either that the FGF19 level secreted by the gallbladder are not high enough to be an effective part of the negative feedback loop, or that the feedback loop is interrupted at a level downstream from FGF19 when bile acid diarrhoea develops. It may also imply that the FGF 19 from the gallbladder is not related to the negative feedback loop at all. This may explain also why there is no correlation between the plasma FGF19 concentration levels and gallbladder FGF19 concentration levels.

PPARα is involved in the regulation of lipid levels by regulating fatty acid metabolism once it is activated by FXR. It decreases hepatic apo C-III production and increases LPL-mediated lipolysis which then increases triglyceride metabolism and decreases LDL secretion. This causes increased free fatty acid oxidation and decreasing serum triglyceride levels [ 1 , 17 ]. Thus, we investigated the effect of gallbladder PPARα on bowel habits as well as on triglyceride levels. We have shown that there was no correlation of PPARα concentration within the gallbladder with the change in triglyceride levels post-operatively. However, when taking the whole picture into account, there was a significant correlation between PPARα concentration levels and change in stool consistency postoperatively, though this was not reflected in the change in bowel habits. This correlation with change in stool consistency may be a reflection of the interruption of the bile acid synthesis loop where there are higher FXR levels leading to more PPARα activation, with the interruption of the negative feedback loop coming later in the pathway thus leading to higher bile acid synthesis rates (rather than lower synthesis rates as it should be with higher FXR concentrations).

This was an exploratory mechanistic study to show metabolic changes post-cholecystectomy. The control group does have some drawbacks in that there may have been some other metabolic changes, however we have shown that PPARα levels do not drive triglyceride levels. We have also shown that serum FGF19 levels change in the post-cholecystectomy period however more work needs to be done regarding the mechanism. The limitations of this study include that it was a single-centre study with a small sample size and therefore it is exploratory in nature.

We have performed the first mechanistic human study investigating the pathophysiology of bile acid diarrhoea following cholecystectomy. We have found that FGF19 levels within the gallbladder have no known effect on the development of BAD, however have confirmed that plasma FGF19 increases after surgery, as do triglyceride levels. We also found that lower gallbladder PPARα concentrations were associated with looser stool which may also be related to the interruption of the negative feedback loop. This study may form the basis of multiple larger studies in the future, including those investigating the gut microbiome and relationship with cholecystectomy and the role of biomarkers such as FGF19 or PPARα in the development of BAD.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Amigo L, Husche C, Zanlungo S, Lutjohann D, Arrese M, Miquel JF, Rigotti A, Nervi F. Cholecystectomy increases hepatic triglyceride content and very-low-density lipoproteins production in mice. Liver International: Official J Int Association Study Liver. 2011;31:52–64.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Walters JR. Bile acid diarrhoea and FGF19: new views on diagnosis, pathogenesis and therapy. Nat Reviews Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;11:426–34.

Keely SJ, Walters JR. The farnesoid X receptor: good for BAD. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;2:725–32.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Damsgaard B, Dalby HR, Krogh K, Jorgensen SMD, Arveschough AK, Agnholt J, Dahlerup JF, Jorgensen SP. Long-term effect of medical treatment of diarrhoea in 594 patients with SeHCAT scan diagnosed bile acid malabsorption from 2003 to 2016; a retrospective study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther; 2018.

Farrugia A, Arasaradnam R. Bile acid diarrhoea: pathophysiology, diagnosis and management. Frontline Gastroenterol 2020:flgastro–2020.

Barrera F, Azócar L, Molina H, Schalper KA, Ocares M, Liberona J, Villarroel L, Pimentel F, Pérez-Ayuso RM, Nervi F, Groen AK, Miquel JF. Effect of cholecystectomy on bile acid synthesis and circulating levels of fibroblast growth factor 19. Ann Hepatol. 2015;14:710–21.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Tazuma STH. Bile acids in gastroenterology: basic and clinical. Springer; 2017.

Johnston IMNJ, Pattni SS, Appleby RN, Zhang JH, Kennie SL, Madhan GK, Jameie-Oskooei S, Pathmasrirengam S, Lin J, Hong A, Dixon PH, Williamson C, Walters JRF. Characterizing factors Associated with differences in FGF19 blood levels and synthesis in patients with primary bile Acid Diarrhea. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:423–32.

Appleby RN, Nolan JD, Johnston IM, Pattni SS, Fox J, Walters JRF. Novel associations of bile acid diarrhoea with fatty liver disease and gallstones: a cohort retrospective analysis. BMJ open Gastroenterol 2017;4 (1) (no pagination).

Sauter GH, Moussavian AC, Meyer G, Steitz HO, Parhofer KG, Jüngst D. Bowel habits and bile acid malabsorption in the months after cholecystectomy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1732.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sagar NMMM, Nwokolo C, Bardhan KD, Arasaradnam RP. Mechanisms of triglyceride metabolism in patients with bile acid diarrhoea. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:6757–63.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Renner O, Harsch S, Strohmeyer A, Schimmel S, Stange EF. Reduced ileal expression of OSTalpha-OSTbeta in non-obese gallstone disease. J Lipid Res. 2008;49:2045–54.

Arasaradnam RP, Brown S, Forbes A, Fox MR, Hungin P, Kelman L, Major G, O’Connor M, Sanders DS, Sinha R, Smith SC, Thomas P, Walters JRF. Guidelines for the investigation of chronic diarrhoea in adults: British Society of Gastroenterology, 3rd edition. Gut 2018.

Borup C, Hedbäck N, Wildt S, Rumessen JJ, Bouchelouche P, Gauliard E, Rainteau D, Munck LK. Effect of cholecystectomy on bile acid diarrhoea biomarkers: a prospective clinical study. GastroHep;n/a.

Lundasen T, Galman C, Angelin B, Rudling M. Circulating intestinal fibroblast growth factor 19 has a pronounced diurnal variation and modulates hepatic bile acid synthesis in man. J Intern Med. 2006;260:530–6.

Zweers SJLB, Booij KAC, Komuta M, Roskams T, Gouma DJ, Jansen PLM, Schaap FG. The human gallbladder secretes fibroblast growth factor 19 into bile: towards defining the role of fibroblast growth factor 19 in the enterobiliary tract. Hepatology (Baltimore MD). 2012;55:575–83.

Ferrebee CB, Dawson PA. Metabolic effects of intestinal absorption and enterohepatic cycling of bile acids. Acta Pharm Sinica B. 2015;5:129–34.

Article   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge Mr Joseph Attard who helped with creating the graphs.

Funding was obtained from the Bowel Disease Research foundation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Surgery, Sandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trusts, Birmingham, UK

Alexia Farrugia

Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK

Nigel Williams & Saboor Khan

Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK

Ramesh P. Arasaradnam

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AF Performed the study by recruiting patients and performing lab work, contacting patients, writing the manuscript. SK Was involved in conceptualisation of the study and reviewing the manuscript. NW was involved in conceptualisation and reviewed the manuscript. RPA was involved in setting up the study, reviewing the results and reviewing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramesh P. Arasaradnam .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

Approval was gained from the ethics committee and the Health research authority for a case control study comparing two groups (Ref 18/EM/0395).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Participants signed consent regard publishing their data.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Farrugia, A., Williams, N., Khan, S. et al. Bile acid diarrhoea and metabolic changes after cholecystectomy: a prospective case-control study. BMC Gastroenterol 24 , 282 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-024-03368-8

Download citation

Received : 25 November 2023

Accepted : 12 August 2024

Published : 22 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-024-03368-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Cholecystectomy

BMC Gastroenterology

ISSN: 1471-230X

• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Observational Studies: Cohort and Case-Control Studies

Jae w. song.

1 Research Fellow, Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery The University of Michigan Health System; Ann Arbor, MI

Kevin C. Chung

2 Professor of Surgery, Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery The University of Michigan Health System; Ann Arbor, MI

Observational studies are an important category of study designs. To address some investigative questions in plastic surgery, randomized controlled trials are not always indicated or ethical to conduct. Instead, observational studies may be the next best method to address these types of questions. Well-designed observational studies have been shown to provide results similar to randomized controlled trials, challenging the belief that observational studies are second-rate. Cohort studies and case-control studies are two primary types of observational studies that aid in evaluating associations between diseases and exposures. In this review article, we describe these study designs, methodological issues, and provide examples from the plastic surgery literature.

Because of the innovative nature of the specialty, plastic surgeons are frequently confronted with a spectrum of clinical questions by patients who inquire about “best practices.” It is thus essential that plastic surgeons know how to critically appraise the literature to understand and practice evidence-based medicine (EBM) and also contribute to the effort by carrying out high-quality investigations. 1 Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have held the pre-eminent position in the hierarchy of EBM as level I evidence ( Table 1 ). However, RCT methodology, which was first developed for drug trials, can be difficult to conduct for surgical investigations. 3 Instead, well-designed observational studies, recognized as level II or III evidence, can play an important role in deriving evidence for plastic surgery. Results from observational studies are often criticized for being vulnerable to influences by unpredictable confounding factors. However, recent work has challenged this notion, showing comparable results between observational studies and RCTs. 4 , 5 Observational studies can also complement RCTs in hypothesis generation, establishing questions for future RCTs, and defining clinical conditions.

Levels of Evidence Based Medicine

From REF 1 .

Observational studies fall under the category of analytic study designs and are further sub-classified as observational or experimental study designs ( Figure 1 ). The goal of analytic studies is to identify and evaluate causes or risk factors of diseases or health-related events. The differentiating characteristic between observational and experimental study designs is that in the latter, the presence or absence of undergoing an intervention defines the groups. By contrast, in an observational study, the investigator does not intervene and rather simply “observes” and assesses the strength of the relationship between an exposure and disease variable. 6 Three types of observational studies include cohort studies, case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies ( Figure 1 ). Case-control and cohort studies offer specific advantages by measuring disease occurrence and its association with an exposure by offering a temporal dimension (i.e. prospective or retrospective study design). Cross-sectional studies, also known as prevalence studies, examine the data on disease and exposure at one particular time point ( Figure 2 ). 6 Because the temporal relationship between disease occurrence and exposure cannot be established, cross-sectional studies cannot assess the cause and effect relationship. In this review, we will primarily discuss cohort and case-control study designs and related methodologic issues.

Analytic Study Designs. Adapted with permission from Joseph Eisenberg, Ph.D.

Temporal Design of Observational Studies: Cross-sectional studies are known as prevalence studies and do not have an inherent temporal dimension. These studies evaluate subjects at one point in time, the present time. By contrast, cohort studies can be either retrospective (latin derived prefix, “retro” meaning “back, behind”) or prospective (greek derived prefix, “pro” meaning “before, in front of”). Retrospective studies “look back” in time contrasting with prospective studies, which “look ahead” to examine causal associations. Case-control study designs are also retrospective and assess the history of the subject for the presence or absence of an exposure.

COHORT STUDY

The term “cohort” is derived from the Latin word cohors . Roman legions were composed of ten cohorts. During battle each cohort, or military unit, consisting of a specific number of warriors and commanding centurions, were traceable. The word “cohort” has been adopted into epidemiology to define a set of people followed over a period of time. W.H. Frost, an epidemiologist from the early 1900s, was the first to use the word “cohort” in his 1935 publication assessing age-specific mortality rates and tuberculosis. 7 The modern epidemiological definition of the word now means a “group of people with defined characteristics who are followed up to determine incidence of, or mortality from, some specific disease, all causes of death, or some other outcome.” 7

Study Design

A well-designed cohort study can provide powerful results. In a cohort study, an outcome or disease-free study population is first identified by the exposure or event of interest and followed in time until the disease or outcome of interest occurs ( Figure 3A ). Because exposure is identified before the outcome, cohort studies have a temporal framework to assess causality and thus have the potential to provide the strongest scientific evidence. 8 Advantages and disadvantages of a cohort study are listed in Table 2 . 2 , 9 Cohort studies are particularly advantageous for examining rare exposures because subjects are selected by their exposure status. Additionally, the investigator can examine multiple outcomes simultaneously. Disadvantages include the need for a large sample size and the potentially long follow-up duration of the study design resulting in a costly endeavor.

Cohort and Case-Control Study Designs

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Cohort Study

Cohort studies can be prospective or retrospective ( Figure 2 ). Prospective studies are carried out from the present time into the future. Because prospective studies are designed with specific data collection methods, it has the advantage of being tailored to collect specific exposure data and may be more complete. The disadvantage of a prospective cohort study may be the long follow-up period while waiting for events or diseases to occur. Thus, this study design is inefficient for investigating diseases with long latency periods and is vulnerable to a high loss to follow-up rate. Although prospective cohort studies are invaluable as exemplified by the landmark Framingham Heart Study, started in 1948 and still ongoing, 10 in the plastic surgery literature this study design is generally seen to be inefficient and impractical. Instead, retrospective cohort studies are better indicated given the timeliness and inexpensive nature of the study design.

Retrospective cohort studies, also known as historical cohort studies, are carried out at the present time and look to the past to examine medical events or outcomes. In other words, a cohort of subjects selected based on exposure status is chosen at the present time, and outcome data (i.e. disease status, event status), which was measured in the past, are reconstructed for analysis. The primary disadvantage of this study design is the limited control the investigator has over data collection. The existing data may be incomplete, inaccurate, or inconsistently measured between subjects. 2 However, because of the immediate availability of the data, this study design is comparatively less costly and shorter than prospective cohort studies. For example, Spear and colleagues examined the effect of obesity and complication rates after undergoing the pedicled TRAM flap reconstruction by retrospectively reviewing 224 pedicled TRAM flaps in 200 patients over a 10-year period. 11 In this example, subjects who underwent the pedicled TRAM flap reconstruction were selected and categorized into cohorts by their exposure status: normal/underweight, overweight, or obese. The outcomes of interest were various flap and donor site complications. The findings revealed that obese patients had a significantly higher incidence of donor site complications, multiple flap complications, and partial flap necrosis than normal or overweight patients. An advantage of the retrospective study design analysis is the immediate access to the data. A disadvantage is the limited control over the data collection because data was gathered retrospectively over 10-years; for example, a limitation reported by the authors is that mastectomy flap necrosis was not uniformly recorded for all subjects. 11

An important distinction lies between cohort studies and case-series. The distinguishing feature between these two types of studies is the presence of a control, or unexposed, group. Contrasting with epidemiological cohort studies, case-series are descriptive studies following one small group of subjects. In essence, they are extensions of case reports. Usually the cases are obtained from the authors' experiences, generally involve a small number of patients, and more importantly, lack a control group. 12 There is often confusion in designating studies as “cohort studies” when only one group of subjects is examined. Yet, unless a second comparative group serving as a control is present, these studies are defined as case-series. The next step in strengthening an observation from a case-series is selecting appropriate control groups to conduct a cohort or case-control study, the latter which is discussed in the following section about case-control studies. 9

Methodological Issues

Selection of subjects in cohort studies.

The hallmark of a cohort study is defining the selected group of subjects by exposure status at the start of the investigation. A critical characteristic of subject selection is to have both the exposed and unexposed groups be selected from the same source population ( Figure 4 ). 9 Subjects who are not at risk for developing the outcome should be excluded from the study. The source population is determined by practical considerations, such as sampling. Subjects may be effectively sampled from the hospital, be members of a community, or from a doctor's individual practice. A subset of these subjects will be eligible for the study.

Levels of Subject Selection. Adapted from Ref 9 .

Attrition Bias (Loss to follow-up)

Because prospective cohort studies may require long follow-up periods, it is important to minimize loss to follow-up. Loss to follow-up is a situation in which the investigator loses contact with the subject, resulting in missing data. If too many subjects are loss to follow-up, the internal validity of the study is reduced. A general rule of thumb requires that the loss to follow-up rate not exceed 20% of the sample. 6 Any systematic differences related to the outcome or exposure of risk factors between those who drop out and those who stay in the study must be examined, if possible, by comparing individuals who remain in the study and those who were loss to follow-up or dropped out. It is therefore important to select subjects who can be followed for the entire duration of the cohort study. Methods to minimize loss to follow-up are listed in Table 3 .

Methods to Minimize Loss to Follow-Up

Adapted from REF 2 .

CASE-CONTROL STUDIES

Case-control studies were historically borne out of interest in disease etiology. The conceptual basis of the case-control study is similar to taking a history and physical; the diseased patient is questioned and examined, and elements from this history taking are knitted together to reveal characteristics or factors that predisposed the patient to the disease. In fact, the practice of interviewing patients about behaviors and conditions preceding illness dates back to the Hippocratic writings of the 4 th century B.C. 7

Reasons of practicality and feasibility inherent in the study design typically dictate whether a cohort study or case-control study is appropriate. This study design was first recognized in Janet Lane-Claypon's study of breast cancer in 1926, revealing the finding that low fertility rate raises the risk of breast cancer. 13 , 14 In the ensuing decades, case-control study methodology crystallized with the landmark publication linking smoking and lung cancer in the 1950s. 15 Since that time, retrospective case-control studies have become more prominent in the biomedical literature with more rigorous methodological advances in design, execution, and analysis.

Case-control studies identify subjects by outcome status at the outset of the investigation. Outcomes of interest may be whether the subject has undergone a specific type of surgery, experienced a complication, or is diagnosed with a disease ( Figure 3B ). Once outcome status is identified and subjects are categorized as cases, controls (subjects without the outcome but from the same source population) are selected. Data about exposure to a risk factor or several risk factors are then collected retrospectively, typically by interview, abstraction from records, or survey. Case-control studies are well suited to investigate rare outcomes or outcomes with a long latency period because subjects are selected from the outset by their outcome status. Thus in comparison to cohort studies, case-control studies are quick, relatively inexpensive to implement, require comparatively fewer subjects, and allow for multiple exposures or risk factors to be assessed for one outcome ( Table 4 ). 2 , 9

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Case-Control Study

An example of a case-control investigation is by Zhang and colleagues who examined the association of environmental and genetic factors associated with rare congenital microtia, 16 which has an estimated prevalence of 0.83 to 17.4 in 10,000. 17 They selected 121 congenital microtia cases based on clinical phenotype, and 152 unaffected controls, matched by age and sex in the same hospital and same period. Controls were of Hans Chinese origin from Jiangsu, China, the same area from where the cases were selected. This allowed both the controls and cases to have the same genetic background, important to note given the investigated association between genetic factors and congenital microtia. To examine environmental factors, a questionnaire was administered to the mothers of both cases and controls. The authors concluded that adverse maternal health was among the main risk factors for congenital microtia, specifically maternal disease during pregnancy (OR 5.89, 95% CI 2.36-14.72), maternal toxicity exposure during pregnancy (OR 4.76, 95% CI 1.66-13.68), and resident area, such as living near industries associated with air pollution (OR 7.00, 95% CI 2.09-23.47). 16 A case-control study design is most efficient for this investigation, given the rarity of the disease outcome. Because congenital microtia is thought to have multifactorial causes, an additional advantage of the case-control study design in this example is the ability to examine multiple exposures and risk factors.

Selection of Cases

Sampling in a case-control study design begins with selecting the cases. In a case-control study, it is imperative that the investigator has explicitly defined inclusion and exclusion criteria prior to the selection of cases. For example, if the outcome is having a disease, specific diagnostic criteria, disease subtype, stage of disease, or degree of severity should be defined. Such criteria ensure that all the cases are homogenous. Second, cases may be selected from a variety of sources, including hospital patients, clinic patients, or community subjects. Many communities maintain registries of patients with certain diseases and can serve as a valuable source of cases. However, despite the methodologic convenience of this method, validity issues may arise. For example, if cases are selected from one hospital, identified risk factors may be unique to that single hospital. This methodological choice may weaken the generalizability of the study findings. Another example is choosing cases from the hospital versus the community; most likely cases from the hospital sample will represent a more severe form of the disease than those in the community. 2 Finally, it is also important to select cases that are representative of cases in the target population to strengthen the study's external validity ( Figure 4 ). Potential reasons why cases from the original target population eventually filter through and are available as cases (study participants) for a case-control study are illustrated in Figure 5 .

Levels of Case Selection. Adapted from Ref 2 .

Selection of Controls

Selecting the appropriate group of controls can be one of the most demanding aspects of a case-control study. An important principle is that the distribution of exposure should be the same among cases and controls; in other words, both cases and controls should stem from the same source population. The investigator may also consider the control group to be an at-risk population, with the potential to develop the outcome. Because the validity of the study depends upon the comparability of these two groups, cases and controls should otherwise meet the same inclusion criteria in the study.

A case-control study design that exemplifies this methodological feature is by Chung and colleagues, who examined maternal cigarette smoking during pregnancy and the risk of newborns developing cleft lip/palate. 18 A salient feature of this study is the use of the 1996 U.S. Natality database, a population database, from which both cases and controls were selected. This database provides a large sample size to assess newborn development of cleft lip/palate (outcome), which has a reported incidence of 1 in 1000 live births, 19 and also enabled the investigators to choose controls (i.e., healthy newborns) that were generalizable to the general population to strengthen the study's external validity. A significant relationship with maternal cigarette smoking and cleft lip/palate in the newborn was reported in this study (adjusted OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.36-1.76). 18

Matching is a method used in an attempt to ensure comparability between cases and controls and reduces variability and systematic differences due to background variables that are not of interest to the investigator. 8 Each case is typically individually paired with a control subject with respect to the background variables. The exposure to the risk factor of interest is then compared between the cases and the controls. This matching strategy is called individual matching. Age, sex, and race are often used to match cases and controls because they are typically strong confounders of disease. 20 Confounders are variables associated with the risk factor and may potentially be a cause of the outcome. 8 Table 5 lists several advantages and disadvantages with a matching design.

Advantages and Disadvantages for Using a Matching Strategy

Multiple Controls

Investigations examining rare outcomes may have a limited number of cases to select from, whereas the source population from which controls can be selected is much larger. In such scenarios, the study may be able to provide more information if multiple controls per case are selected. This method increases the “statistical power” of the investigation by increasing the sample size. The precision of the findings may improve by having up to about three or four controls per case. 21 - 23

Bias in Case-Control Studies

Evaluating exposure status can be the Achilles heel of case-control studies. Because information about exposure is typically collected by self-report, interview, or from recorded information, it is susceptible to recall bias, interviewer bias, or will rely on the completeness or accuracy of recorded information, respectively. These biases decrease the internal validity of the investigation and should be carefully addressed and reduced in the study design. Recall bias occurs when a differential response between cases and controls occurs. The common scenario is when a subject with disease (case) will unconsciously recall and report an exposure with better clarity due to the disease experience. Interviewer bias occurs when the interviewer asks leading questions or has an inconsistent interview approach between cases and controls. A good study design will implement a standardized interview in a non-judgemental atmosphere with well-trained interviewers to reduce interviewer bias. 9

The STROBE Statement: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Statement

In 2004, the first meeting of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) group took place in Bristol, UK. 24 The aim of the group was to establish guidelines on reporting observational research to improve the transparency of the methods, thereby facilitating the critical appraisal of a study's findings. A well-designed but poorly reported study is disadvantaged in contributing to the literature because the results and generalizability of the findings may be difficult to assess. Thus a 22-item checklist was generated to enhance the reporting of observational studies across disciplines. 25 , 26 This checklist is also located at the following website: www.strobe-statement.org . This statement is applicable to cohort studies, case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. In fact, 18 of the checklist items are common to all three types of observational studies, and 4 items are specific to each of the 3 specific study designs. In an effort to provide specific guidance to go along with this checklist, an “explanation and elaboration” article was published for users to better appreciate each item on the checklist. 27 Plastic surgery investigators should peruse this checklist prior to designing their study and when they are writing up the report for publication. In fact, some journals now require authors to follow the STROBE Statement. A list of participating journals can be found on this website: http://www.strobe-statement.org./index.php?id=strobe-endorsement .

Due to the limitations in carrying out RCTs in surgical investigations, observational studies are becoming more popular to investigate the relationship between exposures, such as risk factors or surgical interventions, and outcomes, such as disease states or complications. Recognizing that well-designed observational studies can provide valid results is important among the plastic surgery community, so that investigators can both critically appraise and appropriately design observational studies to address important clinical research questions. The investigator planning an observational study can certainly use the STROBE statement as a tool to outline key features of a study as well as coming back to it again at the end to enhance transparency in methodology reporting.

Acknowledgments

Supported in part by a Midcareer Investigator Award in Patient-Oriented Research (K24 AR053120) from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (to Dr. Kevin C. Chung).

None of the authors has a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this manuscript.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Diversity of the diet is correlated with osteoporosis in post-menopausal women: an Iranian case-control study

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Nutrition, Electronic Health and Statistics Surveillance Research Center, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
• 2 Department of Nutrition, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
• PMID: 39185118
• PMCID: PMC11342058
• DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1431181

Background: Proper nutrition is a crucial factor in preventing osteoporosis, a significant pathological cause linked to skeletal weakness; this study investigated the relationship between dietary diversity score and food group diversity score with osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

Methods: This case-control study was conducted on 378 menopausal women aged 45-85 in Tehran, Iran. The age-matching method to control the confounding effect of age was used. The method of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was used for assessing the bone mineral density of lumbar vertebrae and femoral neck. The bone mass status was evaluated with WHO criteria. All subjects were divided into the osteoporosis group and the non-osteoporosis group according to their T-score. A convenience sampling method was utilized to select the participants, which included two groups: case ( n = 189) and control ( n = 189). Data was collected using demographic and anthropometric information questionnaires, a valid 147 item food frequency questionnaire, and a physical activity questionnaire. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS-26, and p -values less than 0.05 were deemed to be statistically significant.

Results: The results indicated significant differences in weight, body mass index, physical activity, smoking, and alcohol use between the two groups. The mean ± standard deviation of dietary diversity score (DDS) was lower in participants with osteoporosis (case) (3.31 ± 1.26) than in control (4.64 ± 1.33) ( p < 0.001). The mean ± standard deviation of diversity score of cereals, fruits, and vegetables in the osteoporosis group (respectively: 0.71 ± 0.21, 0.94 ± 0.76, and 0.45 ± 0.44) was less than the control group (respectively: 0.80 ± 0.21, 1.64 ± 0.55 and 0.87 ± 0.42) ( p < 0.001). After adjusting the confounding variables, the risk of osteoporosis had an inverse relationship with the diversity score of vegetable (OR = 0.16; 95%CI: 0.07-0.35), bread and cereal (OR = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.05-0.87) and fruit (OR = 0.35; 95%CI: 0.22-0.56) ( p < 0.05). Nevertheless, no discernible correlation was seen between the tertiles of DDS, dairy and meat diversity score, and osteoporosis.

Conclusion: We found a correlation between the diversity score of fruits, vegetables, and grains and osteoporosis. However, there is no significant correlation between the DDS triads and the diversity score of dairy products and meats with osteoporosis.

Keywords: bone resorption; diet diversity score; osteoporosis; postmenopausal; postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Copyright © 2024 Abbasi, Hajinasab, Mohammadi Zadeh and Ahmadi.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Graph of methodology.

• Ensrud KE, Crandall CJ. Osteoporosis. Ann Intern Med. (2017) 167:ITC17–32. doi: 10.7326/AITC201708010 - DOI - PubMed
• Compston JE, McClung MR, Leslie WD. Osteoporosis. Lancet. (2019) 393:364–76. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32112-3 - DOI - PubMed
• Sözen T, Özışık L, Başaran NÇ. An overview and management of osteoporosis. Eur J Rheumatol. (2017) 4:46–56. doi: 10.5152/eurjrheum.2016.048, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
• Coughlan T, Dockery F. Osteoporosis and fracture risk in older people. Clin Med. (2014) 14:187–91. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.14-2-187, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
• National Osteoporosis Foundation . America's bone health: the state of osteoporosis and low bone mass in our nation. Washington, DC: National Osteoporosis Foundation; (2002).
• Search in MeSH

Related information

Grants and funding, linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Frontiers Media SA
• PubMed Central
• Genetic Alliance
• MedlinePlus Health Information

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The governance and optimization of urban flooding in dense urban areas utilizing deep tunnel drainage systems: a case study of guangzhou, china, share and cite.

Sun, J.; Wu, X.; Wang, G.; He, J.; Li, W. The Governance and Optimization of Urban Flooding in Dense Urban Areas Utilizing Deep Tunnel Drainage Systems: A Case Study of Guangzhou, China. Water 2024 , 16 , 2429. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16172429

Sun J, Wu X, Wang G, He J, Li W. The Governance and Optimization of Urban Flooding in Dense Urban Areas Utilizing Deep Tunnel Drainage Systems: A Case Study of Guangzhou, China. Water . 2024; 16(17):2429. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16172429

Sun, Jingyi, Xuewei Wu, Guanghua Wang, Junguo He, and Wentao Li. 2024. "The Governance and Optimization of Urban Flooding in Dense Urban Areas Utilizing Deep Tunnel Drainage Systems: A Case Study of Guangzhou, China" Water 16, no. 17: 2429. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16172429

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 125 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals