Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24140846›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of urology2014

Secondary data analysis of large data sets in urology: successes and errors to avoid.

Bruce J Schlomer, Hillary L Copp

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of urology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Routinely collected data for population-based outcomes research.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2020
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. A review of routinely collected data studies in urology: Methodological considerations, reporting quality, and future directions.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada
    Review
  11. Difference of opinion - Radical prostatectomy in metastatic prostate cancer: is there enough evidence? | Opinion: No.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Bruce J SchlomerBaylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas.
Hillary L CoppUniversity of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.

Funding

UCSF KURe Career Development ProgramK12DK083021 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI BASKIN, LAURENCE, CARROLL, PETER R · 2008 to 2017
$5.9M
NIDDK NIH HHS K12 DK083021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSecondary data analysis is the use of data collected for research by someone other than the investigator. In the last several years there has been a dramatic increase in the number of these studies being published in urological journals and presented at urological meetings, especially involving secondary data analysis of large administrative data sets. Along with this expansion, skepticism for secondary data analysis studies has increased for many urologists. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this narrative review we discuss the types of large data sets that are commonly used for secondary data analysis in urology, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of secondary data analysis. A literature search was performed to identify urological secondary data analysis studies published since 2008 using commonly used large data sets, and examples of high quality studies published in high impact journals are given. We outline an approach for performing a successful hypothesis or goal driven secondary data analysis study and highlight common errors to avoid.

resultsMore than 350 secondary data analysis studies using large data sets have been published on urological topics since 2008 with likely many more studies presented at meetings but never published. Nonhypothesis or goal driven studies have likely constituted some of these studies and have probably contributed to the increased skepticism of this type of research. However, many high quality, hypothesis driven studies addressing research questions that would have been difficult to conduct with other methods have been performed in the last few years.

conclusionsSecondary data analysis is a powerful tool that can address questions which could not be adequately studied by another method. Knowledge of the limitations of secondary data analysis and of the data sets used is critical for a successful study. There are also important errors to avoid when planning and performing a secondary data analysis study. Investigators and the urological community need to strive to use secondary data analysis of large data sets appropriately to produce high quality studies that hopefully lead to improved patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalBiomedical ResearchHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePeriodicals as TopicPublishingUrologyoutcome assessmentresearch design

Identifiers

PMID24140846
PMCPMC4299757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.