Case control study, 210 cases, 420 controls

Case control study poster example

A case control study poster lives or dies on its exposure table, because every odds ratio has to rebuild from the counts beside it. This A0 landscape example compares 210 adults treated for kitchen burns with 420 controls matched on age across six exposures. Loose sleeves carry the largest odds ratio, 2.8, 95% CI 1.9 to 4.2.

Create a poster with OneCraftA0 Landscape, printed at 1189 by 841 millimetres

The whole board

The poster at full size, exactly as it prints. Every number, citation and caption on it was written for this example, so the layout is being judged on real content.

OU
What raises the odds of a kitchen burn? A case control study of 210 burned adults and 420 matched controls
M. Tervonen ¹, A. Osei Bonsu ¹ ²
1 Burns and Injury Research Group, Ostrandale University · 2 Department of Emergency Medicine, Ostrandale University
Abstract
We compared 210 adults treated for a kitchen burn with 420 controls matched on age and asked both about six exposures while cooking. Loose sleeves carried the highest odds ratio, 2.8, then holding a child, 2.4.
METHODS
Cases. 210 adults treated for a burn sustained while cooking at home, at 3 emergency departments, March 2024 to February 2026.
Controls. 420 adults attending the same departments for a non burn injury, 2 per case, matched on age within 5 years.
Exposures. Six factors during the cooking session: clothing, a child held, alcohol, deep frying, pot handles and kitchen floor area.
Interview. Structured interview within 7 days. Controls described their most recent cooking session before the injury visit.
Analysis. Odds ratios with 95% intervals from the counts; a conditional model on the matched sets moved none by more than 0.2.
Exposures, cases and controls
Exposure during cooking
Cases, of 210
Controls, of 420
Odds ratio (95% CI)
1. Loose or hanging sleeves
63 (30%)
56 (13%)
2.8 (1.9 to 4.2)
2. Holding a child
38 (18%)
36 (9%)
2.4 (1.4 to 3.9)
3. Alcohol in the past 6 hours
29 (14%)
31 (7%)
2.0 (1.2 to 3.4)
4. Deep frying in an open pan
54 (26%)
68 (16%)
1.8 (1.2 to 2.7)
5. Pot handle turned outward
71 (34%)
98 (23%)
1.7 (1.2 to 2.4)
6. Kitchen under 6 square metres
88 (42%)
150 (36%)
1.3 (0.9 to 1.8)
Why a case control design
Kitchen burns are common in emergency departments but rare per cooking session, so following cooks forward would take years to collect enough burns. Starting from the burns and looking back at what was different about that session is the faster and fairer route.
REFERENCES
1.Brannigan, S. and Ilori, T. (2023) Clothing ignition in domestic cooking burns. Burns and Injury Prevention, 29(4), 412 to 430.
2.Kalnins, V. (2024) Choosing hospital controls in injury case control studies. Injury Epidemiology Methods, 7(2), 88 to 104.
3.Tervonen, M. (2025) A structured interview for kitchen burn exposures. Ostrandale Injury Report 3, 2025.
4.Osei Bonsu, A. (2025) Recall in injury case control interviews. Emergency Research Notes, 12(1), 9 to 18.
1
2
3
4
5
6
No effect
00.71.42.12.8
Figure 1. Odds ratio for each exposure, numbered as in the table, beside a reference bar at 1.0, the value for no difference.
Source: structured interviews, 210 cases and 420 controls.
What the ratios say
The two strongest exposures are about what the cook wears and holds, not the kitchen. Five of the six intervals exclude 1; kitchen size, 0.9 to 1.8, does not. Recall is the main weakness: a burned cook has thought hard about the session and a control has not, which would push every ratio up.
OR 2.8
loose or hanging sleeves while cooking
95% CI 1.9 to 4.2; 63 of 210 cases against 56 of 420 controls
Key finding
Loose sleeves nearly tripled the odds of a kitchen burn, the largest of the six.
Roll up or fasten sleeves before reaching over a hot pan
Put a child down before lifting or stirring a hot pot
Turn pot handles inward, away from the edge of the stove
Do not deep fry after drinking; use a lidded fryer instead

Block by block

What each block on the board is for, in the order a reader walks it.

Title band and two authors
The title asks what raises the odds of a kitchen burn and gives both group sizes. Two authors from the fictional Ostrandale University.
Abstract and methods
A short abstract, then five method entries: how cases were found, how controls were chosen and matched, the six exposures, the interview and the analysis.
Exposure table
Six numbered rows, each with exposed cases out of 210, exposed controls out of 420 and the odds ratio with its interval. The table carries no caption, because this layout clips one.
Why a case control design
A short paragraph on why starting from the burns is faster than following cooks forward, set under the methods.
What the ratios say, key number and figure
Five of six intervals exclude 1 and kitchen size does not. The stat block gives the sleeves result with its counts. Figure 1 plots the six ratios beside a reference bar at 1.0.
Key finding, prevention points and references
The callout states the headline, four checked prevention points turn the table into advice, and four references sit in the left column.

What makes this board work

Every ratio rebuilds from its row

Loose sleeves: 63 exposed and 147 not among cases, 56 and 364 among controls, so 63 times 364 over 147 times 56 is 2.79. Each row carries its own counts out of 210 and 420, so a reviewer can check any ratio with a phone calculator.

A reference bar keeps the chart honest

Figure 1 adds a bar at 1.0, the value for no difference, beside the six ratios. Without it the kitchen size bar at 1.3 looks like a finding; next to the reference it reads as what its interval of 0.9 to 1.8 says it is.

The weakness is named on the board

Recall is the known flaw of a case control design, and the results block says so: a burned cook has thought hard about the session and a control has not. Naming it in the panel a reader stops at beats a footnote.

Questions people ask

What goes in the main table of a case control poster?

One row per exposure, the exposed count among cases and among controls with their denominators, and the odds ratio with its 95% interval. This table uses four columns and six rows. Put the denominators in the column headers, as here with 210 and 420, so each cell can stay short enough to read from a metre away.

How do I show matching on a case control poster?

Say what was matched, how closely and in what ratio, in one method entry: here two controls per case, matched on age within 5 years, from the same departments. If a conditional model on the matched sets gives similar ratios to the simple counts, say that in one line, as this board does, and keep the counts.

Should the poster show odds ratios that include 1?

Yes. Kitchen size, with an odds ratio of 1.3 and an interval of 0.9 to 1.8, stays in the table and the figure. Dropping null results makes the remaining exposures look stronger than the study supports, and a reader comparing your board with the paper will notice the missing row.

Why is this board landscape rather than portrait?

Six exposures plus a header need a tall table block. The portrait table led layout clipped the last two rows of this table, so the board uses the landscape table layout, whose table holds up to eight rows and four columns. Check how many rows a design shows before filling it, not after.

Can the figure show confidence intervals as error bars?

Not on this board. Poster figures here draw one of ten chart kinds from a series of values, and none draws error bars, so the intervals live in the table and the stat block. Plotting the point estimates and printing the intervals beside them is a fair trade on a poster read standing up.

How should controls be described on a case control poster?

Say where they came from and why they share the cases catchment. These controls attended the same three emergency departments for injuries other than burns. That choice keeps them comparable on access to care, but they may cook less than the public, and the board leaves room to say so.

Build your own in about a minute

The button below opens the generator with this use case already described. Change the wording to match your own, generate, then edit anything you like.

Make one like this

Other poster examples

Mixed methods study poster example

A mixed methods study poster must show both strands and, more important, where they meet. This A0 landscape example uses an explanatory sequential design: records for 14,200 clinic visits show waits peaking at 41 minutes at 3 pm, then 30 patient interviews explain why, and a three row joint display ties each theme to the pattern it explains.

Cohort study poster example

A cohort study poster has to show change over time in the same people, so the follow up waves carry the board. This A0 landscape example follows 2,400 hospital and factory workers for six years, 1,200 on rotating shifts and 1,200 on day work, and reports new hypertension with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.9.

Cross sectional study poster example

A cross sectional study poster reports how common something is at one moment, so its headline is a prevalence, not a change. This A0 landscape example surveys 3,600 students in 22 Queensland secondary schools in one week: 38% sleep under 8 hours on a school night, and short sleep is 1.9 times as common above 4 hours of recreational screen time.

Want the steps in the builder? Read Add charts and diagrams, then choose the template, theme and size. For everything this generator can do, see the poster maker.

Sources

Written and checked by the OneCraft team. Last checked .