方法对比
并排查看您选择的方法；存在差异的行会高亮显示。
| 实用诊断准确性研究× | 横断面流行病学研究× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域 | 流行病学 | 流行病学 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 2000s–2010s (formalized alongside STARD reporting guidelines) | 1960s (formal codification); widely practiced since mid-20th century |
| 提出者≠ | 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) |
| 类型≠ | Observational diagnostic study design | Observational, descriptive/analytic epidemiological design |
| 开创性文献≠ | Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2015). STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. BMJ, 351, h5527. DOI ↗ | 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 |
| 别名 | real-world diagnostic accuracy study, pragmatic DAS, routine-care diagnostic study, pragmatic test evaluation | prevalence study, cross-sectional survey, transversal study, cross-sectional design |
| 相关 | 6 | 6 |
| 摘要≠ | 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. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|