Annals of Surgical Oncology Cite Track
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

10.1245/s10434-007-9658-3
Annals of Surgical Oncology 15:415-423 (2008)
© 2008 Society of Surgical Oncology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nathan, H.
Right arrow Articles by Pawlik, T. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nathan, H.
Right arrow Articles by Pawlik, T. M.

Original Article

Limitations of Claims and Registry Data in Surgical Oncology Research

Hari Nathan, MD and Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, MPH

Department of Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

Correspondence: Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, MPH; E-mail: tpawlik1{at}jhmi.edu

Studies based on large population-based data sets, such as administrative claims data and tumor registry data, have become increasingly common in surgical oncology research. These data sets can be acquired relatively easily, and they offer larger sample sizes and improved generalizability compared with institutional data. There are, however, significant limitations that must be considered in the analysis and interpretation of such data. Invalid conclusions can result when insufficient attention is paid to issues such as data quality and depth, potential sources of bias, missing data, type I error, and the assessment of statistical significance. This article reviews some important limitations of population-based data sets and the methods used to analyze them. The candid reporting of these issues in the literature and an increased awareness among surgical oncologists of these limitations will ensure that population-based studies in the surgical oncology literature achieve high standards of methodological quality and clinical utility.

Key Words: Claims • Administrative • Registry • Outcomes • Data • Surgery




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Ann. Surg. Oncol.Home page
H. Nathan, T. A. Aloia, J.-N. Vauthey, E. K. Abdalla, A. X. Zhu, R. D. Schulick, M. A. Choti, and T. M. Pawlik
A Proposed Staging System for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
Ann. Surg. Oncol., January 1, 2009; 16(1): 14 - 22.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Surg. Oncol.Home page
B. Cady, N. R. Nathan, J. S. Michaelson, M. Golshan, and B. L. Smith
Matched Pair Analyses of Stage IV Breast Cancer with or Without Resection of Primary Breast Site
Ann. Surg. Oncol., December 1, 2008; 15(12): 3384 - 3395.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the Society of Surgical Oncology.