ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Time and cost of linking administrative datasets for outcomes assessment in a follow-up study of participants from two randomised trials.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- The Road to Hell Winds On: The High Administrative Burden of Maintaining Linked National Health Data.International journal of population data science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor the follow-up of participants in randomised trials, data linkage is thought a more cost-efficient method for assessing outcomes. However, researchers often encounter technical and budgetary challenges. Data requests often require a significant amount of information from researchers, and can take several years to process. This study aimed to determine the feasibility, direct costs and the total time required to access administrative datasets for assessment of outcomes in a follow-up study of two randomised trials.
methodsWe applied to access administrative datasets from New Zealand government agencies. All actions of study team members, along with their corresponding dates, were recorded prospectively for accessing data from each agency. Team members estimated the average time they spent on each action, and invoices from agencies were recorded. Additionally, we compared the estimated costs and time required for data linkage with those for obtaining self-reported questionnaires and conducting in-person assessments.
resultsEight agencies were approached to supply data, of which seven gave approval. The time from first enquiry to receiving an initial dataset ranged from 96 to 854 days. For 859 participants, the estimated time required to obtain outcome data from agencies was 1,530 min; to obtain completed self-reported questionnaires was 11,025 min; and to complete in-person assessments was 77,310 min. The estimated total costs were 20,827 NZD for data linkage, 11,735 NZD for self-reported questionnaires, and 116,085 NZD for in-person assessments. Using this data, we estimate that for a cohort of 100 participants, the costs would be similar for data linkage and in-person assessments. For a cohort of 5,000 participants, we estimate that costs would be similar for data linkage and questionnaires, but ten-fold higher for in-person assessments.
conclusionsObtaining administrative datasets demands a substantial amount of time and effort. However, data linkage is a feasible method for outcome ascertainment in follow-up studies in New Zealand. For large cohorts, data linkage is likely to be less costly, whereas for small cohorts, in-person assessment has similar costs but is likely to be faster and allows direct assessment of 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.