Sammenlign metoder
Gennemgå dine valgte metoder side om side; rækker, der afviger, er fremhævet.
| Retrospektiv tværsnits-epidemiologisk undersøgelse× | Retrospektiv Kasus-Kontrol Studie× | |
|---|---|---|
| Fagområde | Epidemiologi | Epidemiologi |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Oprindelsesår≠ | Mid–late 20th century | 1950s–1960s (formal methodology) |
| Ophavsperson≠ | Epidemiology tradition (formalized in mid-20th century; Rothman, Greenland and others) | Jerome Cornfield; formalized by Brian MacMahon and others in mid-20th-century epidemiology |
| Type≠ | Observational study design | Observational analytical study |
| Oprindelig kilde≠ | Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Lash, T. L. (2008). Modern Epidemiology (3rd ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN: 978-0781755641 | Schlesselman, J. J. (1982). Case-Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0195029338 |
| Aliasser | retrospective cross-sectional survey, record-based cross-sectional study, retrospective prevalence study, secondary-data cross-sectional study | case-control study, retrospective case-referent study, case-referent design, trohoc study |
| Relaterede | 5 | 5 |
| Resumé≠ | A retrospective cross-sectional epidemiological study measures the prevalence of exposures and outcomes at a single analytical time point using data that were originally recorded in the past — such as medical records, administrative databases, or disease registries. It combines the snapshot logic of a cross-sectional design with the efficiency of retrospective data access, making it a practical choice when prospective data collection is unfeasible or when large existing datasets are available. | A retrospective case-control study identifies individuals who already have an outcome of interest (cases) and a comparable group without it (controls), then looks backward in time using existing records to determine prior exposure to a suspected risk factor. The primary measure of association is the odds ratio. This design is especially efficient for studying rare diseases or outcomes with long latency periods, since the outcome has already occurred before the study begins. |
| ScholarGateDatasæt ↗ |
|
|