ReviewThe Journal of urology2014
Secondary data analysis of large data sets in urology: successes and errors to avoid.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Big Data Analytics in Urologic Oncology: A Comprehensive Review of Large-scale Database Research and Clinical Applications.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- A Clinically Grounded Rule-Based Phenotyping Framework for Identifying Immune-Related Adverse Events in Structured Electronic Health Record Data: A Retrospective EHR Study.Research square · 2026Article
- Article
- The Importance of Reporting Clinical and Epidemiological Data in Urology: Local Experiences and Insights from the International Literature.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Article
- Routinely collected data for population-based outcomes research.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2020Article
- The future of clinical trials in urological oncology.Nature reviews. Urology · 2019Review
- Pediatric urolithiasis associated with acute gastroenteritis: an inpatient database study in Japan.European journal of pediatrics · 2017Article
- Use of patient registries and administrative datasets for the study of pediatric cancer.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2015Review
- Big Data Analytics in urology: the story so far and the road ahead.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
- 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 CanadaReview
- 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 UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.