Editing Case–control study (section)

==Definition==
Porta's ''Dictionary of Epidemiology'' defines the case–control study as: "an observational epidemiological study of persons with the disease (or another outcome variable) of interest and a suitable control group of persons without the disease (comparison group, reference group). The potential relationship of a suspected risk factor or an attribute to the disease is examined by comparing the diseased and nondiseased subjects with regard to how frequently the factor or attribute is present (or, if quantitative, the levels of the attribute) in each of the groups (diseased and nondiseased)."<ref name="Porta's Dictionary of Epidemiology">{{cite book |title=A Dictionary of Epidemiology |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-19-531450-2 |editor-last=Porta |editor-first=M. |editor-link=Miquel Porta |edition=5th |location=New York}}</ref>

The case–control study is frequently contrasted with [[cohort study|cohort studies]], wherein exposed and unexposed subjects are observed until they develop an outcome of interest.<ref name="Porta's Dictionary of Epidemiology" /><ref>{{cite book |last=Rothman |first=K. |title=Epidemiology: An Introduction |url=https://archive.org/details/epidemiology00kenn |url-access=registration |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford, England |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-19-513554-1 }}</ref>

===Control group selection===
Controls need not be in good health; inclusion of sick people is sometimes appropriate, as the control group should represent those at risk of becoming a case.<ref name="Grimes_2005"/> Controls should come from the same population as the cases, and their selection should be independent of the exposures of interest.<ref name="pmid11844534">{{cite journal |vauthors=Schulz KF, Grimes DA | title = Case–control studies: research in reverse | journal = Lancet | volume = 359 | issue = 9304 | pages = 431–4 | year = 2002 | pmid = 11844534 | doi = 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07605-5 | s2cid = 10770936 }}</ref>

Controls can carry the same disease as the experimental group, but of another grade/severity, therefore being different from the outcome of interest. However, because the difference between the cases and the controls will be smaller, this results in a lower [[statistical power|power]] to detect an exposure effect.{{citation needed|date=May 2023}}

As with any epidemiological study, greater numbers in the study will increase the power of the study. Numbers of cases and controls do not have to be equal. In many situations, it is much easier to recruit controls than to find cases. Increasing the number of controls above the number of cases, up to a ratio of about 4 to 1, may be a cost-effective way to improve the study.<ref name="Grimes_2005">{{cite journal |vauthors=Grimes DA, Schulz KF | title = Compared to what? Finding controls for case–control studies | journal = Lancet | volume = 365 | issue = 9468 | pages = 1429–33 | year = 2005 | pmid = 15836892 | doi = 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66379-9 | s2cid = 836985 }}</ref>

===Prospective vs. retrospective cohort studies===
A prospective study watches for outcomes, such as the development of a disease, during the study period and relates this to other factors such as suspected risk or protection factor(s). The study usually involves taking a cohort of subjects and watching them over a long period. The outcome of interest should be common; otherwise, the number of outcomes observed will be too small to be statistically meaningful (indistinguishable from those that may have arisen by chance). All efforts should be made to avoid sources of bias such as the loss of individuals to follow up during the study. Prospective studies usually have fewer potential sources of bias and confounding than retrospective studies.<ref name="SD">{{Cite web|url=https://www.statsdirect.com/help/basics/prospective.htm|title=Prospective, Retrospective, Case–control, Cohort Studies - StatsDirect|website=www.statsdirect.com|access-date=2019-07-04}}</ref>

A retrospective study, on the other hand, looks backwards and examines exposures to suspected risk or protection factors in relation to an outcome that is established at the start of the study. Many valuable case–control studies, such as Lane and Claypon's 1926 investigation of risk factors for breast cancer, were retrospective investigations. Most sources of error due to confounding and bias are more common in retrospective studies than in prospective studies. For this reason, retrospective investigations are often criticised. If the outcome of interest is uncommon, however, the size of prospective investigation required to estimate relative risk is often too large to be feasible. In retrospective studies the odds ratio provides an estimate of relative risk. One should take special care to avoid sources of [[bias (statistics)|bias]] and [[confounding]] in retrospective studies.<ref name="SD"/>