ArticlePloS one2016
Comparison of Estimates between Cohort and Case-Control Studies in Meta-Analyses of Therapeutic Interventions: A Meta-Epidemiological Study.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Secondary Risk-Reducing Strategies for Contralateral Breast Cancer in BRCA1/2 Variant Carriers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Advances in therapy · 2025Pooled it
- The association between the Helicobacter pylori infection and the occurrence of gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- The Association between Telomere Length and Head and Neck Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Pooled it
- The role of calcium and vitamin D dietary intake on risk of colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2022Pooled it
- Antithyroid drug use during pregnancy and the risk of birth defects in offspring: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies with methodological considerations.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Survival Analysis in Cutaneous Leishmaniasis Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Analysis of Tooth Loss as a Biomarker of Systemic Health: Insights From a 15-Year Study of 35 Patients.Cureus · 2025Article
- Association Between Physical Activity and Pancreatic Cancer Risk and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObservational studies are increasingly being used for assessing therapeutic interventions. Case-control studies are generally considered to have greater risk of bias than cohort studies, but we lack evidence of differences in effect estimates between the 2 study types. We aimed to compare estimates between cohort and case-control studies in meta-analyses of observational studies of therapeutic interventions by using a meta-epidemiological study.
methodsWe used a random sample of meta-analyses of therapeutic interventions published in 2013 that included both cohort and case-control studies assessing a binary outcome. For each meta-analysis, the ratio of estimates (RE) was calculated by comparing the estimate in case-control studies to that in cohort studies. Then, we used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate a combined RE across meta-analyses. An RE < 1 indicated that case-control studies yielded larger estimates than cohort studies.
resultsThe final analysis included 23 meta-analyses: 138 cohort and 133 case-control studies. Treatment effect estimates did not significantly differ between case-control and cohort studies (combined RE 0.97 [95% CI 0.86-1.09]). Heterogeneity was low, with between-meta-analysis variance τ2 = 0.0049. Estimates did not differ between case-control and prospective or retrospective cohort studies (RE = 1.05 [95% CI 0.96-1.15] and RE = 0.99 [95% CI, 0.83-1.19], respectively). Sensitivity analysis of studies reporting adjusted estimates also revealed no significant difference (RE = 1.03 [95% CI 0.91-1.16]). Heterogeneity was also low for these analyses.
conclusionWe found no significant difference in treatment effect estimates between case-control and cohort studies assessing therapeutic interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.