Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Søren Korsgaard1, Morten Schmidt1,2

  • 1Klinisk Epidemiologisk Afdeling, Institut for Klinisk Medicin, Aarhus Universitetshospital og Aarhus Universitet.

Ugeskrift for Laeger
|May 6, 2024
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Study quality labels like "retrospective" and "prospective" are often misused. This review clarifies definitions, highlighting that "retrospective" implies recall bias risk only in retrospective data collection, urging caution with these terms.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Compliance to direct oral anticoagulation therapy and clinical outcomes after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a nationwide cohort study.

Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology·2026
Same author

Reporting of Cohort and Routinely Collected Data in Randomised Controlled Trial Protocols (SPIRIT-ROUTINE): extension checklist with explanation and elaboration.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2026
Same author

Empagliflozin Versus Dapagliflozin and Urogenital Adverse Events in Type 2 Diabetes: A Target Trial Emulation.

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism·2026
Same author

Workforce Attachment After Patent Foramen Ovale Closure.

Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team·2026
Same author

The Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register: Review of Clinical and Research Potential.

Clinical epidemiology·2026
Same author

New Zealand Electronic Health Data for Cardiovascular Research: A Review.

Clinical epidemiology·2026
Same journal

[Mosaicism as a cause of Cowden syndrome].

Ugeskrift for laeger·2026
Same journal

[Thyrotoxic crisis with cardiogenic shock].

Ugeskrift for laeger·2026
Same journal

[Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in the treatment of depression].

Ugeskrift for laeger·2026
Same journal

[Fitness].

Ugeskrift for laeger·2026
Same journal

[Risk of developing cataract related to fluoroscopy].

Ugeskrift for laeger·2026
Same journal

[Obturator hernia with small bowel ileus presenting as hip pain in an elderly woman].

Ugeskrift for laeger·2026
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Medical research methodology
  • Epidemiological study design

Background:

  • The terms "retrospective" and "prospective" are commonly used to denote study quality.
  • These labels often implicitly favor prospective study designs.
  • However, multiple definitions exist, leading to potential methodological confusion.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review and evaluate the existing definitions of "retrospective" and "prospective" study labels.
  • To clarify the appropriate application of the "retrospective" label.
  • To emphasize the importance of assessing study quality beyond these ambiguous terms.

Main Methods:

  • Literature review of definitions for retrospective and prospective studies.
  • Critical evaluation of the methodological implications of each definition.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of the conditions under which recall bias is relevant.

    • Main Results:

    • Three distinct definitions of "retrospective" and "prospective" studies were identified.
    • The "retrospective" label should be reserved for studies with a risk of recall bias, specifically during retrospective data collection.
    • Ambiguous labeling can obscure true study limitations.

    Conclusions:

    • Caution is advised when using the "retrospective" study label.
    • Accurate appraisal of study quality requires assessing random and systematic errors.
    • Relying solely on "retrospective" or "prospective" labels can be misleading for evaluating research quality.