Table of Contents
Cohort studies are the most effective way to understand the occurrence and progression of a condition. These studies can be either prospective or retrospective, and sometimes they compare two different cohorts.
Prospective Cohort Studies
In a prospective cohort study, a group of individuals who do not have the outcome of interest (such as a heart attack) is selected. The researcher then measures various variables that might be relevant to the development of the condition. Over time, the individuals in the sample are observed to see if they develop the outcome of interest.
In single cohort studies, individuals who do not develop the outcome of interest are used as internal controls. In studies with two cohorts, one group has been exposed to or treated with the factor of interest, while the other group acts as an external control.
Retrospective Cohort Studies
Retrospective cohort studies utilize data that has already been collected for other purposes. The methodology is the same as in prospective studies, but the study is conducted after the fact. The cohort is “followed up” retrospectively, and the study only takes as long as needed to analyze the collected data.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Cohort studies are often necessary when conducting research on risk factors, as conducting a randomized controlled trial could be unethical. By measuring potential causes before the outcome occurs, cohort studies can show that these causes preceded the outcome, thus avoiding the debate about cause and effect.
Another advantage of cohort studies is that they can examine multiple outcome variables in a single study. For example, a study of smokers can simultaneously examine the incidence of lung, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular diseases. In contrast, case-control studies focus on only one outcome variable.
Cohort studies also allow for the calculation of the effect of each variable on the probability of developing the outcome of interest (relative risk). However, if the outcome is rare, a prospective cohort study may be inefficient. For example, studying 100 minor injuries in an emergency department for the development of diabetes mellitus may only yield one patient with the outcome of interest. Prospective cohort studies are more efficient when the incidence of the outcome is higher.
One challenge with prospective cohort studies is the potential loss of subjects during follow-up, which can significantly impact the outcome. Retrospective studies are more cost-effective since the data has already been collected. However, there may be a lack of rigorously collected relevant information due to the study’s original purpose.
Retrospective cohorts are also susceptible to recall bias, where individuals with the outcome of interest may remember certain factors differently and exaggerate or minimize risk factors. When comparing two cohorts, confounding variables can be a major disadvantage, as it is difficult to control for all factors that may differ between the two groups.
How to Conduct a Cohort Study
If readily available, a retrospective design is the quickest method. Otherwise, a prospective study with high-quality and reliable data is necessary. The first step is defining the sample group, ensuring that each subject has the potential to develop the outcome of interest. If studying the incidence and natural history of the condition, the sample should be representative of the general population. For analytical studies analyzing the relationship between predictor variables and outcomes, the sample should include as many patients likely to develop the outcome as possible.
Accurate measurement of each variable is crucial. Some variables, such as height, may only need to be recorded once, while others, like drug misuse or weight, may require repeated measurements. To minimize the possibility of missing confounding variables, all relevant variables should be measured. Additionally, maintaining contact and follow-up with patients throughout the study is essential to minimize losses that could affect the validity of the results.
Cohort studies have produced many noteworthy examples, including the Framingham Heart Study, the UK Study of Doctors Who Smoke, and Professor Neville Butler’s studies on British children born in 1958. Recent examples include a prospective cohort study by Davey Smith et al. published in the BMJ, as well as a retrospective cohort study examining the use of emergency departments by people with diabetes.
To learn more about different study designs and their applications, visit 5 WS.