The impact of an intervention to an outcome of interest was sought to be assessed using retrospective data from two groups of patients - one group exposed to the intervention, the other was not. The catch is that the complete data from the unexposed group were obtained from 2016 to 2017, while those from the exposed group obtained from 2019 to 2020. The study group recognizes the limitations such circumstance has on the quality/validity of the evidence presented.
All of these being said, would you still consider the design being retrospective cohort, when there is temporal difference between the data obtained for the two groups?
Provided there was no temporal effect on the confounders and no significant environmental change between the two time periods (eg Covid, heatwave,fire, flood ,war) I would say you could regard it as retrospective cohort study.
.There is a one year follow up period for the exposed and unexposed group but it is a different calendar year for each.
Technically speaking it is not really a cohort study but a non randomised “retrospective“ trial? One questions the validity of data and conclusions drawn primarily because of potentially different confounders present in the two different time periods eg effect of different exposure factors on intervention.
From Epidemiological point of view your study looks clinical trial (randomized vs non randomized???) rather than cohort study since there is an intervention. However, the lack of consistency in the time frame could have a potential effect on the outcome of interest.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication