Comparer des méthodes

	Étude cas-témoins pragmatique	Étude cas-témoins nichée
Domaine	Épidémiologie	Épidémiologie
Famille	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Année d'origine	1950s–1960s (classical); pragmatic framing 1967–2000s	1973–1977
Auteur d'origine	Evolved from classical case-control methodology (Dorn, 1954; Cornfield, 1956); pragmatic framing formalized by Schwartz & Lellouch (1967)	Nathan Mantel (1973); D. C. Thomas (1977 formalization)
Type	Observational epidemiological study design	Hybrid observational study design
Source fondatrice	Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Lash, T. L. (2008). Modern Epidemiology (3rd ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN: 978-0781755641	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	real-world case-control study, pragmatic case-control design, effectiveness case-control study, PCCS	NCC study, nested CC design, case-control within cohort, density sampling case-control
Apparentées	6	6
Résumé	A pragmatic case-control study is an observational design that compares individuals who have developed a disease or outcome (cases) with those who have not (controls), using data collected under routine real-world conditions rather than strictly controlled experimental settings. Exposure histories are reconstructed from clinical records, registries, or administrative databases. The design is chosen when a conventional explanatory case-control study would be impractical, unethical, or too narrow to inform actual clinical or public-health decisions.	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.