Jämför metoder

	Multicenter Case-Control Study	Kapslad fall-kontrollstudie
Ämnesområde	Epidemiologi	Epidemiologi
Familj	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Ursprungsår	Mid-20th century; multicenter framework formalised 1970s–1980s	1973–1977
Upphovsperson	Epidemiology convention; seminal statistical framework by Breslow & Day (IARC, 1980)	Nathan Mantel (1973); D. C. Thomas (1977 formalization)
Typ	Observational analytical epidemiological design	Hybrid observational study design
Ursprungskälla	Breslow, N. E., & Day, N. E. (1980). Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume I: The Analysis of Case-Control Studies. IARC Scientific Publications No. 32. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon. ISBN: 978-9283211327	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	multisite case-control study, collaborative case-control study, pooled case-control study, multi-institutional case-control study	NCC study, nested CC design, case-control within cohort, density sampling case-control
Närliggande	6	6
Sammanfattning	A multicenter case-control study is an observational design that identifies individuals who have developed a disease (cases) and disease-free comparators (controls) across two or more study sites simultaneously. By pooling recruitment across hospitals, clinics, or geographic regions, the design achieves larger sample sizes, captures exposure variability over broader populations, and improves the statistical power needed to detect modest odds ratios for rare or heterogeneous diseases.	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.