Secondary analyses of large population-based data sets: Issues of quality, standards, and understanding

Annals of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 395-396

  Ko, Clifford Y ^a   Parikh, Janak ^a   Zingmond, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER PROGRAM; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; EDITORIAL; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; SECONDARY ANALYSIS; STANDARD; CANCER REGISTRY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HUMAN; NOTE; ONCOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REGISTER; SURGERY;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); HUMANS; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REGISTRIES; SEER PROGRAM; SPECIALTIES, SURGICAL;

EID: 40649089671     PISSN: 10689265     EISSN: 15344681     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-007-9657-4     Document Type: Editorial

References (4)

1. Nathan H, Pawlik TM. Limitations of claims and registry data in surgical oncology research. Ann Surg Oncol 2007. doi: 10.1245/s10434-007-9658-3
2. Altman D, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al. for the CONSORT Group. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001;134(8):663-94
3. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000;342(25):1887-92
4. Benson J, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 2000;342(25):1878-86