Abstract
The effect of interventions designed to help prevent or treat pressure ulcers can be assessed through a number of study designs including retrospective and prospective cohort studies. This article highlights the strengths and weaknesses of these 2 approaches to data collection and analysis. Retrospective studies provide for analysis of large amounts of data with less investment, while prospective cohorts may capture clinically relevant variables missing from retrospective data sets. Prospective studies may also gather data in a more consistent and accurate manner. However, ensuring comparability between the various study groups (patient groups managed with different products or interventions) remains a challenge for both prospective and retrospective cohort studies. In retrospective cohort studies, allocation may be based on arbitrary reimbursement decisions, while prospective cohort designs may mask unequal distribution of key risk factors.