Talk:Case–control study

message: Banner at the top is distracting, can we remove this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.248.161 (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: study but rather a cohort study. In the cohort study the time evolution of a large group of people (in that case doctors) is studied from time zero into the future and the number of lung cancers is recorded both for smokers and non-smokers. In the case-control one would take
a sample of sick people (cases) and healthy people (controls) and then compare 
the fraction of past smokers and non smokers in the two samples. 
Cohort studies and case-control studies are fundamentally
different even if in the cohort there are "controls".
So I think that the reference to Doll's study here is misleading.  
:You mean like this? 
:Sir Richard and his colleagues interviewed 700 lung cancer patients to try to identify a possible link. 
:"We asked them every question we could think of," he said. 
:"It wasn't long before it became clear that cigarette smoking may be to blame. Gzuckier (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember correctly, Doll and colleagues started by just asking lung cancer sufferers everything they could think of - traffic fumes were one of the original ideas - and used that to generate some hypotheses worth testing by a case-control study. They then tested their conclusions about cigarette smoke further with a cohort study, much more expensive and time-consuming but less liable to bias, and further by looking within that cohort study at the risk to subjects who gave up smoking. The latter finding, that those who gave up smoking had a risk of lung cancer that declined to nonsmokers' levels over 15 years or so, was and is thought to give the strongest evidence. It may not be a trial, but it is very difficult to see how it could give a result biased in this particular way. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: So who is Doll, and what reasons do you have for saying so ?   --85.220.120.207 22:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doll is Sir Richard_Doll.  He is not listed among Nobel Laurates in Medicine. --Moklevat 18:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you may be correct - should the reference be edited out? Just zis Guy, you know? 09:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There has been a merger proposed with Case-controlled trial for some months.  Opinions?  Merge or remove the tag? Tedernst 18:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Wouldn't case control study be a better name for this page? --jwandersTalk 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename: Case control study 

message: No, in medical literature case-control is the way this type of study is commonly referred to; not case control  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.102 (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: I just edited this page: I didn't have time to change everything I thought ought to be changed, but I will try to add to this in future, as the quality of this page was simply terrible. (I do have a background in epidemiology, so I thought I would help out a bit with these pages. :-) Alic D (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I know this is not in protocol, but case control studies cannot show causation.  This article says so twice without citation.  It is misleading.  Also, using tobacco and lung cancer is leading, a less biased example would better explain this type of research design.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.109 (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Correlation and causation references

message: I'm pretty sure of this, and googling the terms seem to suggest the same, maybe some one could verify it and paste the smoking paragraphs over to the cohort study page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.194.80.44 (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Doll and Bradford Hill's preliminary study, not of doctors, was case-control, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2038856/pdf/brmedj03566-0003.pdf. The much larger British Doctors Study, perhaps most conveniently summarized by https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC437139/ was a oohort study. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The British Doctors Study was not a case control study, but a cohort study.. no? 

message: Should be using en-dash in "case–control".
—DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix grammar 

message: Hi. The article currently states "A case–control study is often used to produce an odds ratio, which is an inferior measure of strength of association compared to relative risk" (bold is mine). The statement in bold is controversial, so this statement violates WP:NPOV. See https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(20)31171-9/fulltext for example of a source disputing that risk ratio is a measure superior to odds ratio. So this part of the sentence should be rewritten, or entirely removed. 147.94.11.173 (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply removed the statement. 147.94.11.173 (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV about risk ratio vs. odds ratio