Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39291109›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine

Nuances of Cohort Studies and Risk Ratio.

Prakash Prabhakarrao Doke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Prakash Prabhakarrao DokeDepartment of Community Medicine, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Post-graduate students and faculty usually conduct case-control studies. However, sometimes they conduct cohort studies that are short-duration. Most investigators enroll the participants in two groups according to the exposure. Then, follow the participants for some duration. At the end of the study, relative risk is calculated, and the work is published in some journal. The exposure may be one time, which may or may not be quantified. The follow-up duration may not be participant-specific, and differential follow-up does not exist. The author has given three examples: the first example of consanguineous marriages and congenital disabilities, the second example of the ABO blood group system and childhood asthma, and the third example of insecticide spraying and stillbirth. In the given examples, cumulative or density incidence cannot be calculated in a true sense and, therefore, risk ratio. Even estimating the incidence of outcome variables in some studies is not appropriate. Risk ratio calculation in such scenarios is questionable because exposure quantification, follow-up period, and combination are the limiting factors. In case-control studies, the prevalence ratio is calculated, which is analogous to relative risk. The author suggests that, in such circumstances, prevalence ratio calculation will be more appropriate.

Indexed as

Cumulative incidencedensity incidencedifferential follow-upexposure quantificationprevalence ratiorelative risk

Identifiers

PMID39291109
PMCPMC11404422

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.