In the pyramid of causal evidence, which ranking correctly lists cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies?

Unlock all questions

This demo includes only 20 questions. Upgrade to access hundreds of questions, flashcards, exam simulations, and disable ads.

Full question bankExam simulationsFlashcards
From $25.99Unlock all

Study for the ACVPM Epidemiology and Biostatistics Exam. Prepare with flashcards and multiple choice questions, with hints and explanations for each. Be exam-ready!

Multiple Choice

In the pyramid of causal evidence, which ranking correctly lists cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies?

Explanation:
The main idea is how study design supports causal inference. Cohort studies follow groups over time to see who develops the outcome, which establishes temporality and allows calculation of risk. This makes them stronger for inferring causality than designs that look back after disease has occurred or measure exposure and outcome at one time. In a case-control study, you start with people who have the outcome and those without, then look back to see who was exposed. This is efficient and good for rare outcomes, but it relies on recall and selection biases and doesn’t directly measure incidence or risk, making causal conclusions less robust than a cohort. A cross-sectional study collects exposure and outcome at a single point in time, so you can’t determine which came first. That limits causal interpretation even more. So the strongest among these for causal evidence is the cohort design, followed by case-control, and then cross-sectional. This ordering matches the pyramid statement Cohort > Case-Control > Cross-Sectional.

The main idea is how study design supports causal inference. Cohort studies follow groups over time to see who develops the outcome, which establishes temporality and allows calculation of risk. This makes them stronger for inferring causality than designs that look back after disease has occurred or measure exposure and outcome at one time.

In a case-control study, you start with people who have the outcome and those without, then look back to see who was exposed. This is efficient and good for rare outcomes, but it relies on recall and selection biases and doesn’t directly measure incidence or risk, making causal conclusions less robust than a cohort.

A cross-sectional study collects exposure and outcome at a single point in time, so you can’t determine which came first. That limits causal interpretation even more.

So the strongest among these for causal evidence is the cohort design, followed by case-control, and then cross-sectional. This ordering matches the pyramid statement Cohort > Case-Control > Cross-Sectional.

More Multiple Choice Questions
Subscribe

Get the latest from Passetra

You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our privacy policy