Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35653006›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2022

Statistical Analysis in the German National Cohort (NAKO) - Specific Aspects and General Recommendations.

Oliver Kuss, Heiko Becher, Andreas Wienke, Till Ittermann, Stefan Ostrzinski, Sabine Schipf, Carsten O Schmidt, Michael Leitzmann, Tobias Pischon, Lilian Krist and 11 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Intensity-specific physical activity and mortality in 147,414 adults: a pooled accelerometer analysis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026
    Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors.

Oliver KussInstitute for Biometrics and Epidemiology, German Diabetes Center, Leibniz Institute for Diabetes Research, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany. oliver.kuss@ddz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3301-5869
Heiko BecherInstitute for Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Andreas WienkeInstitute of Medical Epidemiology, Biometrics, and Informatics, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
Till IttermannInstitute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Stefan OstrzinskiInstitute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Sabine SchipfInstitute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Carsten O SchmidtInstitute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Michael LeitzmannDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Regensburg University Medical Center, Regensburg, Germany.
Tobias PischonMolecular Epidemiology Research Group, Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany.
Lilian KristInstitute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Stephanie RollInstitute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Matthias SandGESIS - Leibniz-Institute for Social Sciences, Mannheim, Germany.
Hermann PohlabelnLeibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
Stefan RachLeibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
Karl-Heinz JöckelInstitute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Andreas StangInstitute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Ulrich A MuellerFederal Institute for Population Research, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Andrea WerdeckerFederal Institute for Population Research, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Ronny WestermanFederal Institute for Population Research, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Karin H GreiserDivision of Cancer Epidemiology, DKFZ Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Karin B MichelsInstitute for Prevention and Cancer Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The German National Cohort (NAKO) is an ongoing, prospective multicenter cohort study, which started recruitment in 2014 and includes more than 205,000 women and men aged 19-74 years. The study data will be available to the global research community for analyses. Although the ultimate decision about the analytic methods will be made by the respective investigator, in this paper we provide the basis for a harmonized approach to the statistical analyses in the NAKO. We discuss specific aspects of the study (e.g., data collection, weighting to account for the sampling design), but also give general recommendations which may apply to other large cohort studies as well.

Indexed as

Research DesignCohort StudiesFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleProspective StudiesBiostatisticsCohort StudiesData interpretation, statisticalFollow-Up studiesProspective studies

Identifiers

PMID35653006
PMCPMC9187540

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.