Comparer des méthodes

	Évaluation de tests de dépistage appariés	Étude cas-témoins nichée
Domaine	Épidémiologie	Épidémiologie
Famille	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Année d'origine	1980s–2000s (formalized alongside diagnostic accuracy methodology)	1973–1977
Auteur d'origine	Methodological synthesis from matched case-control and diagnostic accuracy traditions (Pepe, Zhou, and others)	Nathan Mantel (1973); D. C. Thomas (1977 formalization)
Type	Observational diagnostic study with matched design	Hybrid observational study design
Source fondatrice	Pepe, M. S. (2003). The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0198509844	Thomas, D. C. (1977). Addendum to: Methods of cohort analysis: Appraisal by application to asbestos mining. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 140(4), 469–491.
Alias	matched diagnostic accuracy study, paired screening evaluation, matched-pair test performance study, matched screening assessment	NCC study, nested CC design, case-control within cohort, density sampling case-control
Apparentées	6	6
Résumé	Matched screening test evaluation assesses the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of a screening or diagnostic test using a matched design, in which disease-positive cases are paired with one or more disease-free controls selected to share key characteristics such as age, sex, or clinical setting. Matching controls for confounders before measuring test performance produces more precise and less biased estimates of diagnostic accuracy, and enables direct paired comparisons of competing tests within the same subjects.	A nested case-control study is an efficient observational design embedded within a defined cohort. For each participant who develops the outcome of interest (a case), a small number of matched controls are sampled from those still at risk at the same point in time. This density-sampling strategy yields odds ratios that approximate incidence-rate ratios from the full cohort at a fraction of the data-collection cost — making it the preferred alternative when measuring exposures for all cohort members would be prohibitively expensive or technically demanding.