Methoden vergelijken

	Pragmatisch Diagnostisch Accuraatheids-onderzoek	Dwarsdoorsnede-epidemiologische studie
Vakgebied	Epidemiologie	Epidemiologie
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Jaar van ontstaan	2000s–2010s (formalized alongside STARD reporting guidelines)	1960s (formal codification); widely practiced since mid-20th century
Grondlegger	Evolved from STARD initiative (Bossuyt et al.) and pragmatic trial framework (Schwartz & Lellouch, 1967)	Classical epidemiology tradition; systematized by Brian MacMahon and Thomas Pugh (1960s)
Type	Observational diagnostic study design	Observational, descriptive/analytic epidemiological design
Oorspronkelijke bron	Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2015). STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. BMJ, 351, h5527.	Kelsey, J. L., Whittemore, A. S., Evans, A. S., & Thompson, W. D. (1996). Methods in Observational Epidemiology (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0195080407
Aliassen	real-world diagnostic accuracy study, pragmatic DAS, routine-care diagnostic study, pragmatic test evaluation	prevalence study, cross-sectional survey, transversal study, cross-sectional design
Verwant	6	6
Samenvatting	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 cross-sectional epidemiological study measures the exposure(s) and outcome(s) of interest simultaneously in a defined population at a single point in time (or over a short period). Because there is no follow-up, it is the most efficient observational design for estimating disease prevalence and for generating hypotheses about associations between risk factors and health outcomes.