Comparer des méthodes

	Étude pragmatique de la précision diagnostique	Étude de cohorte
Domaine	Épidémiologie	Épidémiologie
Famille	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Année d'origine	2000s–2010s (formalized alongside STARD reporting guidelines)	Mid-20th century (formal epidemiological design codified ~1950s)
Auteur d'origine	Evolved from STARD initiative (Bossuyt et al.) and pragmatic trial framework (Schwartz & Lellouch, 1967)	Doll & Hill (British Doctors Study, 1951); Snow (cholera, 1854)
Type	Observational diagnostic study design	Observational longitudinal study design
Source fondatrice	Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2015). STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. BMJ, 351, h5527.	Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Lash, T. L. (2008). Modern Epidemiology (3rd ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN: 978-0781755641
Alias	real-world diagnostic accuracy study, pragmatic DAS, routine-care diagnostic study, pragmatic test evaluation	longitudinal study, follow-up study, panel study, incidence study
Apparentées	6	6
Résumé	A pragmatic diagnostic accuracy study evaluates how well a diagnostic test performs under real-world clinical conditions — not in idealized, tightly controlled settings. Conducted within routine care workflows, it measures sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios for an index test against a reference standard, yielding accuracy estimates directly applicable to clinical practice rather than laboratory benchmarks.	A cohort study assembles a group of individuals who share a common starting point — typically freedom from the outcome of interest — and follows them over time to observe who develops the outcome. By comparing incidence rates between exposed and unexposed subgroups, researchers can estimate relative risk and absolute risk differences. Cohort studies are the gold-standard observational design for measuring disease incidence and establishing temporal relationships between exposure and outcome.