Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Clinical Research›Cohort Studies
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Cohort Studies

Clinical Research · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 5 min read

Studies in which subsets of a defined population are identified.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (950 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

Studies in which subsets of a defined population are identified. These groups may or may not be exposed to factors hypothesized to influence the probability of the occurrence of a particular disease or other outcome. Cohorts are defined populations which, as a whole, are followed in an attempt to determine distinguishing subgroup characteristics.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Cohort Study; Studies, Cohort; Study, Cohort; Studies, Concurrent; Concurrent Study; Study, Concurrent; Concurrent Studies; Closed Cohort Studies.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Epidemiologic Studies
Narrower topics
Follow-Up Studies; Longitudinal Studies; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
See also
Birth Cohort

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 2,969,133 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Cohort Studies” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 952,944 of them (32.1%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 1,036,305 records.

Reviews account for 91,721 records (3.1%) and meta-analyses for 18,952. Randomized controlled trials number 164,424 (5.5%) as a share of all records on the topic.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 434,263 records; 2000-2009: 545,621 records; 2010-2019: 1,036,305 records; 2020 onward: 952,944 records434,263through 1999545,6212000-20091,036,3052010-2019952,9442020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 1999434,263
2000-2009545,621
2010-20191,036,305
2020 onward952,944
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 3.1 percent; Meta-analyses: 0.6 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 5.5 percentReviews3.1% (91,721)Meta-analyses0.6% (18,952)Randomized controlled trials5.5% (164,424)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 2,969,133 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews91,7213.1%
Meta-analyses18,9520.6%
Randomized controlled trials164,4245.5%

Method: PubMed query "Cohort Studies"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in clinical research

Research methods determine how much a result can be trusted. Randomized trials guard against confounding, systematic reviews and meta-analyses combine many studies, and observational designs are valuable but can show only association. Reporting standards, trial registration and pre-specified outcomes reduce bias. When reading about a method, ask what problem it is designed to solve and which problems it does not solve.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Collider scope: when selection bias can substantially influence observed associations
Munafò MR, Tilling K, Taylor AE, Evans DM, Davey Smith G
2018Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
710cc by
PMID 29040562 · DOI · PMC5837306
Framework and baseline examination of the German National Cohort (NAKO)
Peters A, German National Cohort (NAKO) Consortium, Peters A, Greiser KH, Göttlicher S, Ahrens W, et al.
2022Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
164cc by
PMID 36260190 · DOI · PMC9581448
Adjusting for unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized longitudinal studies: a methodological review
Streeter AJ, Lin NX, Crathorne L, Haasova M, Hyde C, Melzer D, et al.
2017Review article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
107cc by
PMID 28460857 · DOI · PMC5589113
Cohort profile: the CORDELIA study (Collaborative cOhorts Reassembled Data to study mEchanisms and Longterm Incidence of chronic diseAses)
Hernáez Á, Camps-Vilaró A, Polo-Alonso S, Subirana I, Ramos R, de Cid R, et al.
2025Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
1cc by
PMID 40353978 · DOI · PMC12170779

Collider scope: when selection bias can substantially influence observed associations [1]

Research article Munafò MR, Tilling K, Taylor AE, Evans DM, Davey Smith G · · 2018 · cited 710 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
Large-scale cross-sectional and cohort studies have transformed our understanding of the genetic and environmental determinants of health outcomes.
Closing excerpt
For example, having DNA available on most participants in a birth cohort study offers the possibility of investigating the extent to which polygenic scores predict subsequent participation, which in turn would enable sensitivity analyses of the extent to which bias might distort estimates.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (256 words)

Large-scale cross-sectional and cohort studies have transformed our understanding of the genetic and environmental determinants of health outcomes. However, the representativeness of these samples may be limited-either through selection into studies, or by attrition from studies over time. Here we explore the potential impact of this selection bias on results obtained from these studies, from the perspective that this amounts to conditioning on a collider (i.e. a form of collider bias). Whereas it is acknowledged that selection bias will have a strong effect on representativeness and prevalence estimates, it is often assumed that it should not have a strong impact on estimates of associations. We argue that because selection can induce collider bias (which occurs when two variables independently influence a third variable, and that third variable is conditioned upon), selection can lead to substantially biased estimates of associations. In particular, selection related to phenotypes can bias associations with genetic variants associated with those phenotypes. In simulations, we show that even modest influences on selection into, or attrition from, a study can generate biased and potentially misleading estimates of both phenotypic and genotypic associations. Our results highlight the value of knowing which population your study sample is representative of. If the factors influencing selection and attrition are known, they can be adjusted for. For example, having DNA available on most participants in a birth cohort study offers the possibility of investigating the extent to which polygenic scores predict subsequent participation, which in turn would enable sensitivity analyses of the extent to which bias might distort estimates.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 29040562 · DOI · PMC5837306

Framework and baseline examination of the German National Cohort (NAKO) [2]

Research article Peters A, German National Cohort (NAKO) Consortium, Peters A, Greiser KH, Göttlicher S, Ahrens W, et al. · · 2022 · cited 164 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
The German National Cohort (NAKO) is a multidisciplinary, population-based prospective cohort study that aims to investigate the causes of widespread diseases, identify risk factors and improve early detection and prevention of disease.
Closing excerpt
NAKO is a major resource for population-based epidemiology to identify new and tailored strategies for early detection, prediction, prevention and treatment of major diseases for the next 30 years.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (249 words)

The German National Cohort (NAKO) is a multidisciplinary, population-based prospective cohort study that aims to investigate the causes of widespread diseases, identify risk factors and improve early detection and prevention of disease. Specifically, NAKO is designed to identify novel and better characterize established risk and protection factors for the development of cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes, neurodegenerative and psychiatric diseases, musculoskeletal diseases, respiratory and infectious diseases in a random sample of the general population. Between 2014 and 2019, a total of 205,415 men and women aged 19-74 years were recruited and examined in 18 study centres in Germany. The baseline assessment included a face-to-face interview, self-administered questionnaires and a wide range of biomedical examinations. Biomaterials were collected from all participants including serum, EDTA plasma, buffy coats, RNA and erythrocytes, urine, saliva, nasal swabs and stool. In 56,971 participants, an intensified examination programme was implemented. Whole-body 3T magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 30,861 participants on dedicated scanners. NAKO collects follow-up information on incident diseases through a combination of active follow-up using self-report via written questionnaires at 2-3 year intervals and passive follow-up via record linkages. All study participants are invited for re-examinations at the study centres in 4-5 year intervals. Thereby, longitudinal information on changes in risk factor profiles and in vascular, cardiac, metabolic, neurocognitive, pulmonary and sensory function is collected. NAKO is a major resource for population-based epidemiology to identify new and tailored strategies for early detection, prediction, prevention and treatment of major diseases for the next 30 years.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 36260190 · DOI · PMC9581448

Adjusting for unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized longitudinal studies: a methodological review [3]

Review article Streeter AJ, Lin NX, Crathorne L, Haasova M, Hyde C, Melzer D, et al. · · 2017 · cited 107 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
ObjectivesMotivated by recent calls to use electronic health records for research, we reviewed the application and development of methods for addressing the bias from unmeasured confounding in longitudinal data.
Closing excerpt
A range of promising new methods have been developed, but further studies are needed to understand their relative performance in different contexts before they can be recommended for widespread use.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (194 words)

ObjectivesMotivated by recent calls to use electronic health records for research, we reviewed the application and development of methods for addressing the bias from unmeasured confounding in longitudinal data.Study design and settingMethodological review of existing literature. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles addressing the threat to causal inference from unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized longitudinal health data through quasi-experimental analysis.ResultsAmong the 121 studies included for review, 84 used instrumental variable analysis (IVA), of which 36 used lagged or historical instruments. Difference-in-differences (DiD) and fixed effects (FE) models were found in 29 studies. Five of these combined IVA with DiD or FE to try to mitigate for time-dependent confounding. Other less frequently used methods included prior event rate ratio adjustment, regression discontinuity nested within pre-post studies, propensity score calibration, perturbation analysis, and negative control outcomes.ConclusionWell-established econometric methods such as DiD and IVA are commonly used to address unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized longitudinal studies, but researchers often fail to take full advantage of available longitudinal information. A range of promising new methods have been developed, but further studies are needed to understand their relative performance in different contexts before they can be recommended for widespread use.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 28460857 · DOI · PMC5589113

Cohort profile: the CORDELIA study (Collaborative cOhorts Reassembled Data to study mEchanisms and Longterm Incidence of chronic diseAses) [4]

Research article Hernáez Á, Camps-Vilaró A, Polo-Alonso S, Subirana I, Ramos R, de Cid R, et al. · · 2025 · cited 1 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
The CORDELIA Study (Collaborative Cohorts Reassembled Data to Study Mechanisms and Long-term Incidence of Chronic Diseases) combines 35 Spanish population cohorts to investigate the clinical, environmental, genetic, and omics determinants of cardiovascular disease in the Southern European population.
Closing excerpt
CORDELIA will significantly contribute to understanding the complex interplay of risk factors contributing to cardiovascular disease and advance the fields of precision medicine and public health in Southern European individuals.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (251 words)

The CORDELIA Study (Collaborative Cohorts Reassembled Data to Study Mechanisms and Long-term Incidence of Chronic Diseases) combines 35 Spanish population cohorts to investigate the clinical, environmental, genetic, and omics determinants of cardiovascular disease in the Southern European population. It aims to conduct the largest genome-wide association study to date on cardiovascular disease in this population, improve predictions of cardiovascular incidence using genomic and clinical data, and identify subgroups that would benefit most from targeted pharmacological and lifestyle interventions. CORDELIA includes 196,632 individuals (ages 18-84, 54% female, 96% born in Spain, 20% with higher education, recruited from 1989 to 2020, with follow-up periods ranging from 5 to 30 years), with DNA samples available for 117,342 participants (60%). Of the participants, 24% were current smokers, 43% hypertensive, 11% diabetic, 15% medicated with lipid-lowering drugs, 44% overweight, and 27% obese. If not already available, genotyping is being performed using the Axiom™ Spain Biobank array (~ 750,000 variants, including 115,000 specific and 50,000 rare functional variants from the Spanish population). The cohort also includes incident events (coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, peripheral artery disease, hypertension, diabetes); date and cause of death; and harmonized data on risk factors (body mass index, waist circumference, lipid profile, blood pressure, glucose, creatinine), lifestyle (smoking, physical activity, diet, alcohol), and socioeconomic status. 99,019 participants (50%) also provide plasma samples. CORDELIA will significantly contribute to understanding the complex interplay of risk factors contributing to cardiovascular disease and advance the fields of precision medicine and public health in Southern European individuals.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 40353978 · DOI · PMC12170779

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Using the general linear mixed model to analyse unbalanced repeated measures and longitudinal data [5]
    Cnaan A, Laird NM, Slasor P · Stat Med · 1997 · cited 909 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data [6]
    McArdle JJ · Annu Rev Psychol · 2009 · cited 839 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Observational research methods. Research design II: cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies [7]
    Mann CJ · Emerg Med J · 2003 · cited 808 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Observational studies: cohort and case-control studies [8]
    Song JW, Chung KC · Plast Reconstr Surg · 2010 · cited 616 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Adolescent Depression and Long-Term Psychosocial Outcomes [9]
    Clayborne ZM, Varin M, Colman I · J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry · 2019 · cited 525 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Retrospective studies - utility and caveats [10]
    Talari K, Goyal M · J R Coll Physicians Edinb · 2020 · cited 466 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Munafò MR, Tilling K, Taylor AE, Evans DM, Davey Smith G. Collider scope: when selection bias can substantially influence observed associations. . 2018. PMID 29040562 · DOI · PMC5837306
  2. Peters A, German National Cohort (NAKO) Consortium, Peters A, Greiser KH, Göttlicher S, Ahrens W, et al.. Framework and baseline examination of the German National Cohort (NAKO). . 2022. PMID 36260190 · DOI · PMC9581448
  3. Streeter AJ, Lin NX, Crathorne L, Haasova M, Hyde C, Melzer D, et al.. Adjusting for unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized longitudinal studies: a methodological review. . 2017. PMID 28460857 · DOI · PMC5589113
  4. Hernáez Á, Camps-Vilaró A, Polo-Alonso S, Subirana I, Ramos R, de Cid R, et al.. Cohort profile: the CORDELIA study (Collaborative cOhorts Reassembled Data to study mEchanisms and Longterm Incidence of chronic diseAses). . 2025. PMID 40353978 · DOI · PMC12170779
  5. Cnaan A, Laird NM, Slasor P. Using the general linear mixed model to analyse unbalanced repeated measures and longitudinal data. Stat Med. 1997. PMID 9351170 · DOI
  6. McArdle JJ. Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009. PMID 18817479 · DOI
  7. Mann CJ. Observational research methods. Research design II: cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies. Emerg Med J. 2003. PMID 12533370 · DOI · PMC1726024
  8. Song JW, Chung KC. Observational studies: cohort and case-control studies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010. PMID 20697313 · DOI · PMC2998589
  9. Clayborne ZM, Varin M, Colman I. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Adolescent Depression and Long-Term Psychosocial Outcomes. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019. PMID 30577941 · DOI
  10. Talari K, Goyal M. Retrospective studies - utility and caveats. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2020. PMID 33469615 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Feasibility StudiesClinical Research
  • Prospective StudiesClinical Research
  • Retrospective StudiesClinical Research
  • Epidemiologic StudiesClinical Research
  • Follow-Up StudiesClinical Research
  • Case-Control StudiesClinical Research

All 98 articles in Clinical Research →

At a glance

2,969,133
PubMed records on this heading
32%
published since 2020
91,721
review articles
164,424
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Feasibility StudiesClinical Research
  • Prospective StudiesClinical Research
  • Retrospective StudiesClinical Research
  • Epidemiologic StudiesClinical Research
  • Follow-Up StudiesClinical Research

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support