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.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 434,263 |
| 2000-2009 | 545,621 |
| 2010-2019 | 1,036,305 |
| 2020 onward | 952,944 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 91,721 | 3.1% |
| Meta-analyses | 18,952 | 0.6% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 164,424 | 5.5% |
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 / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collider scope: when selection bias can substantially influence observed associations | 2018 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 710 | cc by PMID 29040562 · DOI · PMC5837306 |
| Framework and baseline examination of the German National Cohort (NAKO) | 2022 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 164 | cc by PMID 36260190 · DOI · PMC9581448 |
| Adjusting for unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized longitudinal studies: a methodological review | 2017 | Review article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 107 | cc by PMID 28460857 · DOI · PMC5589113 |
| Cohort profile: the CORDELIA study (Collaborative cOhorts Reassembled Data to study mEchanisms and Longterm Incidence of chronic diseAses) | 2025 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 1 | cc by PMID 40353978 · DOI · PMC12170779 |
Collider scope: when selection bias can substantially influence observed associations [1]
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]
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]
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]
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]
- Research article Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data [6]
- Research article Observational research methods. Research design II: cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies [7]
- Research article Observational studies: cohort and case-control studies [8]
- Research article Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Adolescent Depression and Long-Term Psychosocial Outcomes [9]
- Research article Retrospective studies - utility and caveats [10]
References
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- McArdle JJ. Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009. PMID 18817479 · DOI
- Mann CJ. Observational research methods. Research design II: cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies. Emerg Med J. 2003. PMID 12533370 · DOI · PMC1726024
- Song JW, Chung KC. Observational studies: cohort and case-control studies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010. PMID 20697313 · DOI · PMC2998589
- 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
- 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.