ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2019
Bias from self selection and loss to follow-up in prospective cohort studies.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 3 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
87 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Time-stratified prognostic factors for poor renal outcomes in childhood-onset lupus nephritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative outcomes of coil embolization and surgical clipping in elderly patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Ultrasound Surveillance in Melanoma Management: Bridging Diagnostic Promise with Real-World Adherence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2024Pooled it
- Estimating direct and indirect genetic effects on emerging variation in depressive symptoms in early adolescence: a trio polygenic score analysis in the MoBa cohort : Author list.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Age at Autism Diagnosis in the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study (MoBa): Exploring the Association With Family Well-Being.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2026Article
- Article
- The contribution of common and rare genetic variation to emotional and behavioural symptoms in childhood and adolescence.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Article
- Investigating Relationships Between Genetic Risk, Childhood Maltreatment, and Eating Disorders in Women.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2026Article
- Letter to the Editor: Reconsidering the Leap from Descriptive Association to Causal Safety in the Beginnings Study.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- The Association of Headache and Physical Activity in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Cohort Study.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
- Quantifying and adjusting for selection biases in the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study using population-wide individual-level registry information.International journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- No evidence of parental mental health influencing children's academic achievement: a within-family study.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Mapping the canine gut microbiome: insights from the Dog Aging Project.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Lifestyle enrichment through social and cognitive engagement in later life: its associations with frailty trajectories and risk over 11 years.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Protective factors for maternal mental health and life satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal analysis.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Youth psychotic experiences: psychometric evaluation and diagnostic associations of the CAPE-16 in adolescents from the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2026Article
- Prevalence, Characteristics, and Genetic Architecture of Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Phenotypes.JAMA pediatrics · 2026Article
- Sex differences in self-reported attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms in clinical and population-based cohorts.JCPP advances · 2025Article
- New-Onset Headache After SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Vaccination: Results From Three Population-Based Cohorts in Norway.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Statistical methods to disentangle genetic effects influencing infertility and early fetal viability with a genome-wide application.PLoS genetics · 2025Article
27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Self-selection into prospective cohort studies and loss to follow-up can cause biased exposure-outcome association estimates. Previous investigations illustrated that such biases can be small in large prospective cohort studies. The structural approach to selection bias shows that general statements about bias are not possible for studies that investigate multiple exposures and outcomes, and that inverse probability of participation weighting (IPPW) but not adjustment for participation predictors generally reduces bias from self-selection and loss to follow-up. We propose to substantiate assumptions in structural models of selection bias through calculation of genetic correlations coefficients between participation predictors, outcome, and exposure, and to estimate a lower bound for bias due to self-selection and loss to follow-up by comparing effect estimates from IPP weighted and unweighted analyses. This study used data from the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study and the Medical Birth Registry of Norway. Using the example of risk factors for ADHD, we find that genetic correlations between participation predictors, exposures, and outcome suggest the presence of bias. The comparison of exposure-outcome associations from regressions with and without IPPW revealed meaningful deviations. Assessment of selection bias for entire multi-exposure multi-outcome cohort studies is not possible. Instead, it has to be assessed and controlled on a case-by-case basis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31451995What 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.