Introduction to Epidemiological Studies

  • Lazaros BelbasisEmail author
  • Vanesa Bellou
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1793)


The basic epidemiological study designs are cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies. Cross-sectional studies provide a snapshot of a population by determining both exposures and outcomes at one time point. Cohort studies identify the study groups based on the exposure and, then, the researchers follow up study participants to measure outcomes. Case-control studies identify the study groups based on the outcome, and the researchers retrospectively collect the exposure of interest. The present chapter discusses the basic concepts, the advantages, and disadvantages of epidemiological study designs and their systematic biases, including selection bias, information bias, and confounding.

Key words

Bias Case-control study Cohort study Confounding Information bias Observational studies Selection bias Study design 


  1. 1.
    Porta M (ed) (2014) A dictionary of epidemiology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Morton NE (1997) Genetic epidemiology. Ann Hum Genet 61:1–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boslaugh SE (2007) Genetic epidemiology. In: Boslaugh SE (ed) Encyclopedia of epidemiology. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 417–420Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khoury M, Little J, Burke W (2004) Human genome epidemiology: scope and strategies. In: Human genome epidemiology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–16Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cordell HJ, Clayton DG (2005) Genetic association studies. Lancet 366:1121–1131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) Descriptive studies: what they can and cannot do. Lancet (London, England). 359:145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) Cohort studies: marching towards outcomes. Lancet (London, England). 359:341–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ioannidis JPA, Munafò MR, Fusar-Poli P et al (2014) Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention. Trends Cogn Sci 18:235–241CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evangelou E, Ioannidis JPA (2013) Meta-analysis methods for genome-wide association studies and beyond. Nat Rev Genet 14:379–389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet (London, England) 359:248–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gordis L (2014) Case-control and other study designs. In: Epidemiology. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 189–214Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2002) Case-control studies: research in reverse. Lancet (London, England). 359:431–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parr CL, Hjartåker A, Laake P et al (2009) Recall bias in melanoma risk factors and measurement error effects: a nested case-control study within the Norwegian women and Cancer study. Am J Epidemiol 169:257–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wacholder S, Silverman DT, McLaughlin JK et al (1992) Selection of controls in case-control studies. III. Design options. Am J Epidemiol 135:1042–1050CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rothman K, Greenland S, Lash T (2008) Validity in epidemiologic studies. In: Modern epidemiology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 128–148Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Hygiene and EpidemiologyUniversity of Ioannina Medical SchoolIoanninaGreece

Personalised recommendations