Сравнение методов

	Многоцентровое вложенное исследование случай-контроль	Вложенное случай-контроль исследование (nested case-control study)
Область	Эпидемиология	Эпидемиология
Семейство	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Год появления	1990s–2000s (multicenter adaptation)	1973–1977
Автор метода	Nested case-control: Norman Mantel (1973); multicenter extension widely adopted in EPIC and other large consortium studies (1990s–2000s)	Nathan Mantel (1973); D. C. Thomas (1977 formalization)
Тип	Observational analytical study design	Hybrid observational study design
Основополагающий источник	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.	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.
Другие названия	multicenter NCC, multi-site nested case-control, pooled nested case-control, nested case-control within multicenter cohort	NCC study, nested CC design, case-control within cohort, density sampling case-control
Связанные	6	6
Сводка	A multicenter nested case-control study embeds a case-control analysis within two or more geographically or institutionally distinct prospective cohorts. Cases who develop the outcome of interest are identified across all participating sites, then matched to controls sampled from the same risk sets, enabling pooled estimation of exposure-disease associations with greater statistical power and geographic generalizability than any single-center nested design.	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.