Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42424104›Full record

ReviewJournal of periodontal research2026

Cohort and Case-Control Studies: Strengths, Limitations and Methodological Considerations.

Nasir Z Bashir, João Botelho, John Rong Hao Tay, Dian Yi Chow, Gustavo G Nascimento

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of periodontal research, 2026. 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

5 authors.

Nasir Z BashirMRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7416-7610
João BotelhoEgas Moniz Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Egas Moniz School of Health and Science, Almada, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1019-8263
John Rong Hao TayNational Dental Research Institute Singapore, National Dental Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3042-3103
Dian Yi ChowNational Dental Research Institute Singapore, National Dental Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1664-9979
Gustavo G NascimentoSchool of Dentistry, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4288-6300

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cohort studies are central to modern health research, enabling the investigation of disease incidence, progression and long-term consequences of exposures. However, cohort designs vary substantially in structure and analytic implementation, and these differences have important implications for their validity and interpretation. This article provides a methodological overview of cohort study design and analysis in periodontology, with emphasis on how design choices and analytical strategies influence the potential sources of bias. We describe the major cohort variants, including prospective, birth, retrospective and nested case-control designs and examine how each shapes exposure measurement, follow-up and outcome ascertainment. Key design considerations include definition of the source population, specification of time zero, handling of dynamic populations and risk sets and the distinction between fixed and time-varying exposures. We then discuss major sources of bias relevant to cohort studies, including confounding, selection bias (index event bias and prevalent user bias included), immortal time bias, censoring and competing risks. Design-based strategies, notably the new-user design and target trial emulation, are presented. We further clarify the basis of a recurring study type in the periodontal literature-single-arm treatment series framed as cohort studies-and discuss how these relate to the cohort design and the inferences they support. Finally, we compare cohort and case-control designs, highlighting both their shared methodological foundations and their important differences in sampling, efficiency, interpretation and application. The credibility of a cohort study depends less on the application of any single statistical method and more on the coherence between the research question, the structure of the data and the assumptions required for valid interpretation. Careful design, transparent reporting and explicit acknowledgment of limitations are essential if cohort studies are to support reliable inference in periodontal research and beyond.

Indexed as

Research DesignBiasCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesHumansbirth cohortcausal inferencecohort studiesepidemiologylongitudinal studiesperiodontitis

Identifiers

PMID42424104
PMCPMC13665617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.