Back To Search Results

Epidemiology Of Study Design

Editor: Sameh W. Boktor Updated: 4/24/2023 12:18:29 PM


In epidemiology, researchers are interested in measuring or assessing the relationship of exposure with a disease or an outcome. As a first step, they define the hypothesis based on the research question and then decide which study design will be best suited to answer that question. How the researcher conducts the investigation is directed by the chosen study design. The study designs can be broadly classified as experimental or observational based on the approach used to assess whether exposure and an outcome are associated. In an experimental study design, researchers assign patients to intervention and control/comparison groups in an attempt to isolate the effects of the intervention. Being able to control various aspects of the experimental study design enables the researchers to identify causal links between interventions and outcomes of interest. In several instances, an experimental study design may not be feasible or suitable; observational studies are conducted in such situations. As the name indicates, observational studies involve merely observing the patients in a non-controlled environment without actually interfering or manipulating with other aspects of the study and therefore are non-experimental. The observation can be prospective, retrospective, or current, depending on the subtype of an observational study.[1]

Observational Studies

Case-Control Studies

Case-control studies are used to determine the degree of associations between various risk factors and outcomes. The factors that affect the risk of a disease are called exposures. Case-control studies can help identify beneficial or harmful exposures. As the name suggests, there are two groups of patient cases and controls in a case-control study. Cases are patients who have a particular disease, condition, or disability. Controls are those patients that do not have the disease. Typically, researchers identify appropriate representative controls for the cases that they are studying from the general population. Then they retrospectively look in the past for the possible exposures these patients might have had to a risk factor. Selecting the patients for the control group is a very critical component of research based on case-control studies. Due to the retrospective nature of the study design, case-control studies are subject to recall bias. Case-control studies are inexpensive, efficient, and often less time-consuming to conduct. This study design is especially suitable for rare diseases that have long latency periods.[2]

Case-Crossover Studies

Case-crossover studies are helpful to study triggers within an individual. When the researcher is studying a transient exposure or risk factor, the case-crossover design is useful. This is a relatively new study design where there is a case and a control component, both of which come from the same individual. Each case is self-matched by serving as its own control. Determining the control and case components period is a critical and difficult aspect of a case-crossover study.[3]

Cohort Studies

Cohort studies initially classify patients into two groups based on their exposure status. Cohorts are followed over time to see who develops the disease in the exposed and non-exposed groups. Cohort studies can be retrospective or prospective. Incidence can be directly calculated from a cohort study as you begin with exposed and unexposed patients, unlike a case-control study where you start with diseased and non-diseased patients. Relative risk is the measure of effect for a cohort study. Cohort studies are subject to very low recall bias, and multiple outcomes can be studied simultaneously. One of the disadvantages of cohort studies is that they are more prone to selection bias. Studying rare diseases and outcomes that have long follow-up periods can be very expensive and time-consuming using cohort studies.[4]

Cross-Sectional Studies

Cross-sectional studies are observational in nature and give a snapshot of the characteristics of study subjects in a single point of time. Unlike cohort studies, cross-sectional studies do not have a follow-up period and therefore are relatively simple to conduct. As the exposure status/outcome of interest information is collected in a single moment in time, often by surveys, cross-sectional study design cannot provide a cause-effect relationship and is the weakest of the observational designs. This study design is generally used to assess the prevalence of a disease in a population.[5]

Ecological Studies

Ecological studies are used when data at an individual level is unavailable, or large-scale comparisons are needed to study the population-level effect of exposures on a disease condition. Therefore, ecological study results are applicable only at the population level. The types of measures in ecological studies are aggregates of individual-level data. These studies, therefore, are subject to a type of confounding called an ecological fallacy, which occurs when relationships identified at group level data are assumed to be true for individuals. Ecological studies are generally used in public health research.[6]

Experimental Studies

Randomized Clinical Trials

Randomized clinical trials or randomized control trials (RCT) are considered the gold standard of study design. In an RCT, the researcher randomly assigns the subjects to a control group and an experimental group. Randomization in RCT avoids confounding and minimizes selection bias. This enables the researcher to have similar experimental and control groups, thereby enabling them to isolate the effect of an intervention. The experimental group gets the exposure/treatment, which can be an agent involved in causation, prevention, or treatment of a disease. The control group receives no treatment, a placebo treatment, or another standard of care treatment depending on the study's objective. The groups are then followed prospectively to see who develops the outcome of interest. RCT’s are expensive, and researchers using this study design often face issues with the integrity of randomization due to refusals, drops outs, crossovers, and non-compliance.[7][8]


Register For Free And Read The Full Article
Get the answers you need instantly with the StatPearls Clinical Decision Support tool. StatPearls spent the last decade developing the largest and most updated Point-of Care resource ever developed. Earn CME/CE by searching and reading articles.
  • Dropdown arrow Search engine and full access to all medical articles
  • Dropdown arrow 10 free questions in your specialty
  • Dropdown arrow Free CME/CE Activities
  • Dropdown arrow Free daily question in your email
  • Dropdown arrow Save favorite articles to your dashboard
  • Dropdown arrow Emails offering discounts

Learn more about a Subscription to StatPearls Point-of-Care


The key function of an epidemiology study design is to enable the researcher to address the research question with minimal ambiguity logically.

Issues of Concern

Study design should be well thought of before initiating a research investigation. Choosing an inappropriate study design may undermine overall study validity. Critical thinking about the possible study design issues beforehand will ensure that the research question is adequately addressed.

Clinical Significance

Study design plays a major role in determining the scientific value of a research study. Understanding the basic study design concepts will aid the clinicians in practicing evidence-based medicine.[9]

Other Issues

Errors in study design are extremely difficult to correct after study completion. Thorough planning is required to avoid weak conclusions or unconvincing results.

Enhancing Healthcare Team Outcomes

All interprofessional healthcare team members, including clinicians, mid-level practitioners, nurses, pharmacists, and therapists, need to be well-versed in the various study designs utilized to perform medical research. Such knowledge can help delineate strong studies and results from weaker ones, determine the clinical applicability of study results, and enhance patient care through the appropriate application of data-driven research results. Failure to understand study design and the strength of data provided by various types of studies can lead to improper decision-making and negatively impact patient outcomes.[10] [Level 5]



Chatburn RL. Basics of study design: Practical considerations (From the "Biostatistics and Epidemiology Lecture Series, Part 1"). Cleveland Clinic journal of medicine. 2017 Sep:84(9 Suppl 2):e10-e19. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.84.s2.03. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 28937358]


Yang W, Zilov A, Soewondo P, Bech OM, Sekkal F, Home PD. Observational studies: going beyond the boundaries of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes research and clinical practice. 2010 May:88 Suppl 1():S3-9. doi: 10.1016/S0168-8227(10)70002-4. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 20466165]

Level 1 (high-level) evidence


Röhrig B, du Prel JB, Wachtlin D, Blettner M. Types of study in medical research: part 3 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Deutsches Arzteblatt international. 2009 Apr:106(15):262-8. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2009.0262. Epub 2009 Apr 10     [PubMed PMID: 19547627]


DiPietro NA. Methods in epidemiology: observational study designs. Pharmacotherapy. 2010 Oct:30(10):973-84. doi: 10.1592/phco.30.10.973. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 20874034]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence


Noordzij M, Dekker FW, Zoccali C, Jager KJ. Study designs in clinical research. Nephron. Clinical practice. 2009:113(3):c218-21. doi: 10.1159/000235610. Epub 2009 Aug 18     [PubMed PMID: 19690439]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence


Buckley HL, Day NJ, Lear G, Case BS. Changes in the analysis of temporal community dynamics data: a 29-year literature review. PeerJ. 2021:9():e11250. doi: 10.7717/peerj.11250. Epub 2021 Apr 8     [PubMed PMID: 33889452]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence


Hiebert R, Nordin M. Methodological aspects of outcomes research. European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 2006 Jan:15 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S4-16     [PubMed PMID: 16317562]

Level 2 (mid-level) evidence


Lilli C, Biggeri A, Zingaretti C, Vertogen B, Frassineti V, Vespignani R, Grossi V, Florescu C, Matteucci L, Pazzi C, Bongiovanni A, Limarzi F, Fausti V, Bertoni L, Donati C, Galardi F, Gentili N, Mazza F, Martinelli G, Nanni O. Is it possible to conduct clinical trials during a pandemic? The example of a trial of hydroxychloroquine. Epidemiologia e prevenzione. 2021 Jan-Apr:45(1-2):28-36. doi: 10.19191/EP21.1-2.P028.036. Epub     [PubMed PMID: 33884840]


Gyawali B, de Vries EGE, Dafni U, Amaral T, Barriuso J, Bogaerts J, Calles A, Curigliano G, Gomez-Roca C, Kiesewetter B, Oosting S, Passaro A, Pentheroudakis G, Piccart M, Roitberg F, Tabernero J, Tarazona N, Trapani D, Wester R, Zarkavelis G, Zielinski C, Zygoura P, Cherny NI. Biases in study design, implementation, and data analysis that distort the appraisal of clinical benefit and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scoring. ESMO open. 2021 Jun:6(3):100117. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100117. Epub 2021 Apr 20     [PubMed PMID: 33887690]


Mahendraratnam N, Mercon K, Gill M, Benzing L, McClellan MB. Understanding Use of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decisions on Medical Product Effectiveness. Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics. 2022 Jan:111(1):150-154. doi: 10.1002/cpt.2272. Epub 2021 Jul 2     [PubMed PMID: 33891318]

Level 3 (low-level) evidence