Health news glossary

When reading health news it’s crucial to understand the terms used to describe research. Here is a list of common terms.


Absolute risk

Absolute risk measures the size of a risk in a person or group of people. This could be the risk of developing a disease over a certain period or it could be a measure of the effect of a treatment, for example how much the risk is reduced by treatment in a person or group.

There are different ways of expressing absolute risk. For example, someone with a 1 in 10 risk of developing a certain disease has ‘a 10% risk’ or ‘a 0.1 risk’, depending on whether percentages or decimals are used. Absolute risk does not compare changes in risk between groups, for example risk changes in a treated group compared to risk changes in an untreated group. That is the function of relative risk.

Before and after study

A before and after study measures particular characteristics of a population or group of individuals at the end of an event or intervention and compares them with those characteristics before the event or intervention. The study gauges the effects of the event or intervention.


Blinding is not telling someone what treatment a person has received or, in some cases, the outcome of their treatment. This is to avoid them being influenced by this knowledge. The person who is blinded could be either the person being treated or the researcher assessing the effect of the treatment (single blind), or both of these people (double blind).

Case-control study

A case-control study is an epidemiological study that is often used to identify risk factors for a medical condition. This type of study compares a group of patients who have that condition with a group of patients that do not have it, and looks back in time to see how the characteristics of the two groups differ.

Case crossover studies

Case crossover studies look at the effects of factors that are thought to increase the risk of a particular outcome in the short term. For example, this type of study might be used to look at the effects of changes in air pollution levels on the short-term risk of asthma attacks. Individuals who have had the outcome of interest are identified and act as their own control.

The presence or absence of the risk factor is assessed for the period immediately before the individual experienced the outcome. This is compared with the presence or absence of the risk factor when the individual did not experience the outcome (control period). If there is a link between the risk factor and the outcome, it would be expected to have been present in the period just before the outcome more often than in the control period.

Case series

A case series is a descriptive study of a group of people, who usually receive the same treatment or who have the same disease. This type of study can describe characteristics or outcomes in a particular group of people, but cannot determine how they compare with people who are treated differently or who do not have the condition.

Clinical practice guidelines

Clinical practice guidelines are statements that are developed to help practitioners and patients make decisions about the appropriate healthcare for specific clinical circumstances.

Cluster randomized controlled trial

In a cluster randomized controlled trial, people are randomized in groups (clusters), rather than individually. Examples of clusters that could be used include schools, neighborhoods or GP surgeries.

Cohort study

This study identifies a group of people and follows them over a period of time to see how their exposures affect their outcomes. This type of study is normally used to look at the effect of suspected risk factors that cannot be controlled experimentally, for example the effect of smoking on lung cancer.

Confidence interval

A confidence interval (CI) expresses the precision of an estimate and is often presented alongside the results of a study (usually the 95% confidence interval). The CI shows the range within which we are confident that the true result from a population will lie 95% of the time. The narrower the interval, the more precise the estimate. There is bound to be some uncertainty in estimates because studies are conducted on samples and not entire populations.

By convention, 95% certainty is considered high enough for researchers to draw conclusions that can be generalized from samples to populations. If we are comparing two groups using relative measures, such as relative risks or odds ratios, and see that the 95% CI includes the value of one in its range, we can say that there is no difference between the groups. This confidence interval tells us that, at least some of the time, the ratio of effects between the groups is one. Similarly, if an absolute measure of effect, such as a difference in means between groups, has a 95% CI that includes zero in its range, we can conclude there is no difference between the groups.

Confounding factor (confounder)

A confounder can distort the true relationship between two (or more) characteristics. When it is not taken into account, false conclusions can be drawn about associations. An example is to conclude that if people who carry a lighter are more likely to develop lung cancer, it is because carrying a lighter causes lung cancer. In fact, smoking is a confounder here. People who carry a lighter are more likely to be smokers and smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer.

Control group

A control group (of cells, individuals or centres, for example) serves as a basis of comparison in a study. In this group, no experimental stimulus is received.

Cross sectional study

This is an epidemiological study that describes characteristics of a population. It is ‘cross sectional’ because data is collected at one point in time and the relationships between characteristics are considered. Importantly, because this study doesn’t look at time trends, it can’t establish what causes what.

Diagnostic study

A diagnostic study tests a new diagnostic method to see if it is as good as the ‘gold standard’ method of diagnosing a disease. The diagnostic method may be used when people are suspected of having a disease because of signs and symptoms, or to try and detect a disease before any symptoms have developed (a screening method).

Ecological studies

In ecological studies, the unit of observation is the population or community. Common types of ecological study are geographical comparisons, time trend analysis or studies of migration.


Epidemiology is the study of factors that affect the health and illness of populations.


An experiment is any study in which the conditions are under the direct control of the researcher. This usually involves giving a group of people an intervention that would not have occurred naturally. Experiments are often used to test the effects of a treatment in people and usually involve comparison with a group who do not get the treatment.

Genome-wide association study

This study looks across the entire genetic sequence (genome) to identify variations in this sequence that are more common in people with a particular characteristic or condition and that may be involved in producing that characteristic or condition.

Levels of evidence

This is a hierarchical categorization (ranking) of different types of clinical evidence. It is partly based on the type of study involved and ranks evidence according to its ability to avoid various biases in medical research. Several ranking schemes exist that are specific to the question posed in the research. Studies with the highest ranking are those that provide the best evidence that a result is true.

Examples of studies ranked in order from high-level to low-level evidence are:

  1. systematic reviews
  2. single randomized controlled trials
  3. controlled trials without randomization
  4. prospective cohort studies
  5. case-control studies
  6. cross sectional studies
  7. case series
  8. single case reports

The expert opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, physiology, bench research or first principles are often thought of as the lowest level evidence. Although there are different systems, some of which take into account other aspects of quality including the directness of the research, the levels are designed to guide users of clinical research information as to which studies are likely to be the most valid.

Likert scale

A Likert scale is a commonly used rating scale that measures attitudes or feelings on a continuous linear scale, usually from a minimum ‘strongly disagree’ response to a maximum ‘strongly disagree’ response, or similar. Likert-scales can be 5-point, 6-point, 10-point, etc. depending on the number of response options available.

Longitudinal study

A longitudinal study is one that studies a group of people over time.


This is a mathematical technique that combines the results of individual studies to arrive at one overall measure of the effect of a treatment.

Narrative review

A narrative review discusses and summarizes the literature on a particular topic, without generating any pooled summary figures through meta-analysis. This type of review usually gives a comprehensive overview of a topic, rather than addressing a specific question such as how effective a treatment is for a particular condition. Narrative reviews do not often report on how the search for literature was carried out or how it was decided which studies were relevant to include. Therefore, they are not classified as systematic reviews.

Negative predictive value

This is one of a set of measures used to show the accuracy of a diagnostic test (see sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value). The negative predictive value (NPV) of a test is a measure of how accurate a negative result on that test is at identifying that a person does not have a disease. The NPV is the proportion of people with a negative test result who do not truly have a disease. For example, if a test has an NPV of 75%, this means that 75% of the people who test negative are truly disease free, while 25% who test negative have the disease (false negatives). The NPV for a test varies depending on how common the disease is in the population being tested. An NPV is usually lower (false negatives are more common) when disease prevalence is higher.

Nested case-control study

A nested case-control study is a special type of case-control study in which ‘cases’ of a disease are drawn for the same cohort (population of people) as the controls to whom they are compared. These studies are sometimes called case-control studies nested in a cohort or case-cohort studies. The collection of data on the cases and controls is defined before the study begins.

Compared with a simple case-control study, the nested case-control study can reduce ‘recall bias’ (where a participant remembers a past event inaccurately) and temporal ambiguity (where it is unclear whether a hypothesised cause preceded an outcome). It can be less expensive and time consuming than a cohort study. Incidence and prevalence rates of a disease can sometimes be estimated from a nested case-control cohort study, whereas they cannot from a simple case-control study (as the total number of exposed people (the denominator) and the follow up time are not usually known).

Non-randomized study

In this type of study, participants are not randomly allocated to receiving (or not receiving) an intervention.

Observational study

In an observational study, researchers have no control over exposures and instead observe what happens to groups of people.

Odds ratio

An odds ratio is one of several ways to summarise the association between an exposure and an outcome, such as a disease. (Another commonly used approach is to calculate relative risks.)

Odds ratios compare the odds of the outcome in an exposed group with the odds of the same outcome in an unexposed group. Odds tell us how likely it is that an event will occur compared to the likelihood that the event will not happen. Odds of 1:3 that an event occurs, e.g. that a horse wins in a race, means the horse will win once and lose three times (over four races). Odds ratios are a way of comparing events across groups who are exposed and those who aren’t.

Open label

Open label means that investigators and participants in a randomized controlled trial are aware of what treatment is being given and received (the study is not blinded).

Peer review

Peer review involves giving a scientific paper to one or more experts in that field of research to ask whether they think it is of good enough quality to be published in a scientific journal. Studies that are not of sufficient quality will not be published if their faults are not corrected. Journals that use peer review are considered to be of better quality than those which do not.

Person years

Person years describes the accumulated amount of time that all the people in the study were being followed up. So, if five people were followed up for ten years each, this would be equivalent to 50 person-years of follow up. Sometimes the rate of an event in a study is given per person year rather than as a simple proportion of people affected, to take into account the fact that different people in the study may have been followed up for different lengths of time.

Person years describes the accumulated amount of time that all the people in the study were being followed up. So, if five people were followed up for ten years each, this would be equivalent to 50 person-years of follow up. Sometimes the rate of an event in a study is given per person year rather than as a simple proportion of people affected, to take into account the fact that different people in the study may have been followed up for different lengths of time.

Phase I trials

Phase I trials are the early phases of drug testing in humans. These are usually quite small studies which primarily test the drug’s safety and suitability for use in humans, rather than its effectiveness. They often involve between 20 and 100 healthy volunteers, although they sometimes involve people who have the condition that the drug is aimed at treating. To test the drug’s safe dosage range, very small doses are given initially and are gradually increased until the levels suitable for use in humans are found.

These studies also test how the drug behaves in the body, examining how it is absorbed, where it is distributed, how it leaves the body and how long it takes to do this.

Phase II trials

During this phase of testing, a drug’s effectiveness in treating the targeted disease in humans is examined for the first time and more is learnt about appropriate dosage levels.

This stage usually involves 200 to 400 volunteers who have the disease or condition that the drug is designed to treat. The drug’s effectiveness is examined and more safety testing and monitoring of the drug’s side effects are carried out.

Phase III trials

In this phase of human testing of treatments, the effectiveness and safety of the drug undergoes a rigorous examination in a large, carefully controlled trial to see how well it works and how safe it is. The drug is tested in a much larger sample of people with the disease or condition than before, with some trials including thousands of volunteers. Participants are followed up for longer than in previous phases, sometimes over several years.

These controlled tests usually compare the new drug’s effectiveness with either existing drugs or a placebo. These trials are designed to give the drug as unbiased a test as possible to ensure that the results accurately represent its benefits and risks. The large numbers of participants and the extended period of follow-up give a more reliable indication of whether the drug will work and allows rarer or longer-term side effects to be identified.

Positive predictive value

This is one of a set of measures used to show how accurate a diagnostic test is (see sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value). The positive predictive value (PPV) of a test is how well the test identifies people who have a disease. The PPV is the proportion of people with a positive test result who truly have the disease. For example, if a test has a PPV of 99%, this means that 99% of the people who test positive will have the disease, while 1% of those who test positive will not have the disease (false positives).

The PPV of a test varies depending on how common the disease is in the population being tested. A test’s PPV tends to be higher in populations where the disease is more common and lower in populations where the disease is less common.

Pre-clinical evaluations

These are in vitro (for example, in cell cultures) and in vivo laboratory animal tests on drugs in development, which are carried out to ensure that they are safe and effective before they go on to be tested in humans (clinical studies).


Prevalence describes how common a particular characteristic (for example, a disease) is in a specific group of people or population at a particular time. Prevalence is usually assessed using a cross sectional study.

Prospective observational study

This study identifies a group of people and follows them over a period of time to see how their exposures affect their outcomes. A prospective observational study is normally used to look at the effect of suspected risk factors that cannot be controlled experimentally, such as the effect of smoking on lung cancer.

Prospective study

A prospective study asks a specific study question (usually about how a particular exposure affects an outcome), recruits appropriate participants and looks at the exposures and outcomes of interest in these people over the following months or years.

Publication bias

Publication bias arises because researchers and editors tend to handle positive experimental results differently from negative or inconclusive results. It is especially important to detect publication bias in studies that pool the results of several trials.

Qualitative research

Qualitative research uses individual in-depth interviews, focus groups or questionnaires to collect, analyze and interpret data on what people do and say. It reports on the meanings, concepts, definitions, characteristics, metaphors, symbols and descriptions of things. It is more subjective than quantitative research and is often exploratory and open-ended. The interviews and focus groups involve relatively small numbers of people.

Quantitative research

Quantitative research uses statistical methods to count and measure outcomes from a study. The outcomes are usually objective and predetermined. A large number of participants are usually involved to ensure that the results are statistically significant.

Randomized controlled trial (RCT)

This is a study where people are randomly allocated to receive (or not receive) a particular intervention (this could be two different treatments or one treatment and a placebo). This is the best type of study design to determine whether a treatment is effective.

Randomized crossover trial

This is a study in which people receive all of the treatments and controls being tested in a random order. This means that people receive one treatment, the effect of which is measured, and then ‘cross over’ into the other treatment group, where the effect of the second treatment (or control) is measured.

Recall bias

Recall bias is when a person’s recall of their exposure to a suspected disease risk factor could be influenced by the knowledge that they are now suffering from that particular disease. For example someone who has suffered a heart attack may recall having a highly stressed job. The stress that they now report experiencing may now be subtly different than the stress they would have reported at the time, before they developed the disease.

Relative risk

Relative risk compares a risk in two different groups of people. All sorts of groups are compared to others in medical research to see if belonging to a particular group increases or decreases the risk of developing certain diseases. This measure of risk is often expressed as a percentage increase or decrease, for example ‘a 20% increase in risk’ of treatment A compared to treatment B. If the relative risk is 300%, it may also be expressed as ‘a three-fold increase’.

Retrospective study

A retrospective study relies on data on exposures and/or outcomes that have already been collected (through medical records or as part of another study). Data used in this way may not be as reliable as data collected prospectively as it relies on the accuracy of records made at the time and on people’s recall of events in the past, which can be inaccurate (referred to as recall bias).

Secondary analysis

A secondary analysis is when researchers revisit data that was collected for a different reason and analyse it again to answer a new research question. This type of analysis is sometimes prone to errors.

Selection bias

Selection bias is a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data is collected.


This is one of a set of measures used to show the accuracy of a diagnostic test (see specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value). Sensitivity is the proportion of people with a disease who are correctly identified as having that disease by the diagnostic test. For example, if a test has a sensitivity of 90%, this means that it correctly identified 90% of the people with the disease, but missed 10% (these people were ‘false negatives’ on the test).


This is one of a set of measures used to assess the accuracy of a diagnostic test (see sensitivity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value). Specificity is the proportion of people without a disease who are correctly identified as not having that disease by the diagnostic test. For example, if a test has a specificity of 95%, this means that it correctly identified 95% of the people who did not have the disease, but that 5% of people without the disease were incorrectly diagnosed as having the disease (these people were ‘false positives’ on the test).

Statistical significance

If the results of a test have statistical significance, it means that they are not likely to have occurred by chance alone. In such cases, we can be more confident that we are observing a ‘true’ result.

Systematic review

This is a synthesis of the medical research on a particular subject. It uses thorough methods to search for and include all or as much as possible of the research on the topic. Only relevant studies, usually of a certain minimum quality, are included.

Time trend studies

Time trend studies are epidemiological studies that describe characteristics of a population over time. They look at trends at the population level (rather than in individuals) through taking repeated cross sectional samples.

Tissue engineering

Tissue engineering is an interdisciplinary field that applies the principles of engineering and biological sciences to developing functional substitutes for damaged tissue.

Twin studies

Twin studies rely on comparing the phenotypes (observable physical traits) of monozygotic (genetically identical) twins and dizygotic (non-identical) twin pairs. The difference in correlation between phenotypes in the identical twins and the correlation in phenotypes in the non-identical twins estimate the genetic contribution to variations in phenotype (the within-twin correlation).

Be Sociable, Share!

“Pink Ribbon Blues”

Paperback includes a new Introduction on fundraising controversies and a color insert with images of, and reactions to, the pinking of breast cancer (2012).

Praise » 

Flyer »

Press Release »

Hardback Cover »

Paperback Cover »

Request Review Copies »

Order the Paperback »


"Seeing clearly through the pink haze" Toronto Sun

*Sad face*: Being happy does not help you live longer" New Scientist

How should we address breast cancer when norms continually change? The Guardian

Your Fun 'No Bra Day' Photos Are Overshadowing Terminal Breast Cancer Patients Broadly

Backlash against “pinkwashing” of breast cancer awareness campaigns BMJ

Breast Cancer to Rise 50 Percent by 2030? Hey, Not So Fast! Health News Review

Breast Cancer: The Flaws in the Cause

How to Make the Biggest Impact With Your Breast Cancer Donations Money

The Very Pink, Very Controversial Business of Breast Cancer Awareness Racked

NFL, Pink Ribbons Not Enough to Win over Women CNN

3 Questions We Need to Answer for Breast Cancer Awareness Month Chronicle of Philanthropy

The problem with National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Women's Health Magazine

Pink Ribbon Envy: Living with an Uncool Cancer The Nib

A Year After Bombings, Some Say 'Boston Strong' Has Gone Overboard NPR, All Things Considered

Canadian Mammogram Study KCRW, NPR Affiliate

Time to Debunk the Mammography Myth CNN

Breast Cancer: Awareness, Activism & Pinkwashing NPR Charlotte

Buying Pink Al Jazeera's The Stream Watch »

The Pink Backlash Orlando Sentinel

Why Jolie's Test Costs So Much CNN

Preventative Mastectomies: Disease and Deception BlogTalkRadio

Angelina Jolie and the 'Breast Cancer Gene' KCRW

Our Feel-Good War on Breast Cancer The New York Times Magazine.

The Story Behind the Pink Ribbon Campaign Sisters Talk Radio

WISH Interview Women's International Summit for Health

Making Cancer About The Patient, Not The Body Part CBS Pittsburgh

Sexy breast cancer campaigns anger many patients USA Today

The perils of pink The Daily

Komen pink campaign creates breast-cancer blues for some Dallas Morning News

A yellow flag for the NFL's pink New York Daily

Gayle Sulik named #7 in SharecareNow’s Top 10 Online Influencers in Breast Cancer

Breast cancer cancer causes so easily derailed Philly Inquirer

Komen Charity Under Microscope for Funding, Science Reuters

The Fight Against Cancer - And Abortion?

Susan G. Komen For the Cure defunds Planned Parenthood. In Deep with Angie Coiro

Amid Breast Cancer Month, Is there Pink Fatigue? NPR's All Things Considered

How is Breast Cancer Culture Undermining Women's Health? America’s Radio News Network

Pink Ribbon Culture and Breast Cancer The Kojo Nnamdi Show

The Big Business of Breast Cancer
Marie Claire

Does Breast Cancer Awareness Month Crowd Out Other Diseases? Slate

Pink Inc. Has Many Starting to See Red The Sacramento Bee

Get Your Pink Off Ottawa Citizen

Komen Pink Ribbons Raise Green and Questions USA Today