Surgical Outcomes Research Based on Administrative Data: Inferior or Complementary to Prospective Randomized Clinical Trials?
The importance of surgical research has gained new prominence over the past decades as the relevance of well designed and well conducted studies has become increasingly evident. There are two basic but diametrically different methods of conducting research: the prospective randomized clinical trial...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | World journal of surgery 2006-03, Vol.30 (3), p.255-266 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 266 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 255 |
| container_title | World journal of surgery |
| container_volume | 30 |
| creator | Guller, Ulrich |
| description | The importance of surgical research has gained new prominence over the past decades as the relevance of well designed and well conducted studies has become increasingly evident. There are two basic but diametrically different methods of conducting research: the prospective randomized clinical trial and the retrospective surgical outcomes study based on administrative data. Administrative databases contain data that were initially collected for purposes other than scientific research. Whereas the prospective randomized clinical trial is familiar to most surgeons, surgical outcomes research based on administrative data constitutes a genre of investigation that is often unfamiliar to and even disparaged by the surgical community. In the present article, the strengths and weaknesses of both prospective randomized clinical trials and retrospective surgical outcomes research are discussed. Specifically, the advantages and limitations of investigations based on large administrative databases are outlined. Because both study designs play an important role in surgical research, carefully designed and implemented surgical outcomes research based on administrative data should be viewed as being complementary and not inferior to prospective randomized clinical trials. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00268-005-0156-0 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67678517</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>67678517</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4498-9e4d7edf0d54db36406b55b1d1be142114565e922f0d1c198c301717fc31c8d63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkV9rFTEQxRdR7LX6AXyRIOjbaiabf-tLaa9WK4VKW_ExZJNZTdndXJNdpYLf3VzvhYIvwsDMw2_O5ORU1VOgr4BS9TpTyqSuKRU1BSFreq9aAW9YzRrW3K9WtJG8zNAcVI9yvqEUlKTyYXUAkmtBpVpVv6-W9DU4O5CLZXZxxEwuMaNN7hs5sRk9iRM59mOYQp6TncMPJG_tbN-Qs6nHFGIipdZx3Aw44jTbdEvmSD6lmDfo_uKXdvJxDL-K1nooOttj1ynYIR89rh70peOTfT-sPp--u15_qM8v3p-tj89rx3mr6xa5V-h76gX3XTFFZSdEBx46BM4AuJACW8YKAQ5a7ZpiFVTvGnDay-awernT3aT4fcE8mzFkh8NgJ4xLNlJJpQWoAj7_B7yJS5rK2wyDtuVcaVYg2EGuuMwJe7NJYSzODVCzDcbsgjElGLMNxtCy82wvvHQj-ruNfRIFeLEHbC4_1Cc7uZDvOCV0q6UoXLvjfoYBb_9_2Xz5eHVySpnWuvkD9cqm6A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>219944782</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Surgical Outcomes Research Based on Administrative Data: Inferior or Complementary to Prospective Randomized Clinical Trials?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Guller, Ulrich</creator><creatorcontrib>Guller, Ulrich</creatorcontrib><description>The importance of surgical research has gained new prominence over the past decades as the relevance of well designed and well conducted studies has become increasingly evident. There are two basic but diametrically different methods of conducting research: the prospective randomized clinical trial and the retrospective surgical outcomes study based on administrative data. Administrative databases contain data that were initially collected for purposes other than scientific research. Whereas the prospective randomized clinical trial is familiar to most surgeons, surgical outcomes research based on administrative data constitutes a genre of investigation that is often unfamiliar to and even disparaged by the surgical community. In the present article, the strengths and weaknesses of both prospective randomized clinical trials and retrospective surgical outcomes research are discussed. Specifically, the advantages and limitations of investigations based on large administrative databases are outlined. Because both study designs play an important role in surgical research, carefully designed and implemented surgical outcomes research based on administrative data should be viewed as being complementary and not inferior to prospective randomized clinical trials.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0364-2313</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-2323</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00268-005-0156-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16485067</identifier><identifier>CODEN: WJSUDI</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer‐Verlag</publisher><subject>Administrative Data ; Administrative Database ; Appendicitis ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biomedical Research ; Databases, Factual ; General aspects ; General Surgery ; Health Services Accessibility ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Nationwide Inpatient Sample ; Open Appendectomy ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods ; Prospective Studies ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Research Design ; Retrospective Studies ; Statistics as Topic</subject><ispartof>World journal of surgery, 2006-03, Vol.30 (3), p.255-266</ispartof><rights>2006 The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Société Internationale de Chirurgie</rights><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2006</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4498-9e4d7edf0d54db36406b55b1d1be142114565e922f0d1c198c301717fc31c8d63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4498-9e4d7edf0d54db36406b55b1d1be142114565e922f0d1c198c301717fc31c8d63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00268-005-0156-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1007%2Fs00268-005-0156-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27915,27916,45565,45566</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=17589865$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16485067$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Guller, Ulrich</creatorcontrib><title>Surgical Outcomes Research Based on Administrative Data: Inferior or Complementary to Prospective Randomized Clinical Trials?</title><title>World journal of surgery</title><addtitle>World J Surg</addtitle><description>The importance of surgical research has gained new prominence over the past decades as the relevance of well designed and well conducted studies has become increasingly evident. There are two basic but diametrically different methods of conducting research: the prospective randomized clinical trial and the retrospective surgical outcomes study based on administrative data. Administrative databases contain data that were initially collected for purposes other than scientific research. Whereas the prospective randomized clinical trial is familiar to most surgeons, surgical outcomes research based on administrative data constitutes a genre of investigation that is often unfamiliar to and even disparaged by the surgical community. In the present article, the strengths and weaknesses of both prospective randomized clinical trials and retrospective surgical outcomes research are discussed. Specifically, the advantages and limitations of investigations based on large administrative databases are outlined. Because both study designs play an important role in surgical research, carefully designed and implemented surgical outcomes research based on administrative data should be viewed as being complementary and not inferior to prospective randomized clinical trials.</description><subject>Administrative Data</subject><subject>Administrative Database</subject><subject>Appendicitis</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomedical Research</subject><subject>Databases, Factual</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>General Surgery</subject><subject>Health Services Accessibility</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Nationwide Inpatient Sample</subject><subject>Open Appendectomy</subject><subject>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Statistics as Topic</subject><issn>0364-2313</issn><issn>1432-2323</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkV9rFTEQxRdR7LX6AXyRIOjbaiabf-tLaa9WK4VKW_ExZJNZTdndXJNdpYLf3VzvhYIvwsDMw2_O5ORU1VOgr4BS9TpTyqSuKRU1BSFreq9aAW9YzRrW3K9WtJG8zNAcVI9yvqEUlKTyYXUAkmtBpVpVv6-W9DU4O5CLZXZxxEwuMaNN7hs5sRk9iRM59mOYQp6TncMPJG_tbN-Qs6nHFGIipdZx3Aw44jTbdEvmSD6lmDfo_uKXdvJxDL-K1nooOttj1ynYIR89rh70peOTfT-sPp--u15_qM8v3p-tj89rx3mr6xa5V-h76gX3XTFFZSdEBx46BM4AuJACW8YKAQ5a7ZpiFVTvGnDay-awernT3aT4fcE8mzFkh8NgJ4xLNlJJpQWoAj7_B7yJS5rK2wyDtuVcaVYg2EGuuMwJe7NJYSzODVCzDcbsgjElGLMNxtCy82wvvHQj-ruNfRIFeLEHbC4_1Cc7uZDvOCV0q6UoXLvjfoYBb_9_2Xz5eHVySpnWuvkD9cqm6A</recordid><startdate>200603</startdate><enddate>200603</enddate><creator>Guller, Ulrich</creator><general>Springer‐Verlag</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200603</creationdate><title>Surgical Outcomes Research Based on Administrative Data: Inferior or Complementary to Prospective Randomized Clinical Trials?</title><author>Guller, Ulrich</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4498-9e4d7edf0d54db36406b55b1d1be142114565e922f0d1c198c301717fc31c8d63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Administrative Data</topic><topic>Administrative Database</topic><topic>Appendicitis</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomedical Research</topic><topic>Databases, Factual</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>General Surgery</topic><topic>Health Services Accessibility</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Nationwide Inpatient Sample</topic><topic>Open Appendectomy</topic><topic>Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Statistics as Topic</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Guller, Ulrich</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>World journal of surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Guller, Ulrich</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Surgical Outcomes Research Based on Administrative Data: Inferior or Complementary to Prospective Randomized Clinical Trials?</atitle><jtitle>World journal of surgery</jtitle><addtitle>World J Surg</addtitle><date>2006-03</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>255</spage><epage>266</epage><pages>255-266</pages><issn>0364-2313</issn><eissn>1432-2323</eissn><coden>WJSUDI</coden><abstract>The importance of surgical research has gained new prominence over the past decades as the relevance of well designed and well conducted studies has become increasingly evident. There are two basic but diametrically different methods of conducting research: the prospective randomized clinical trial and the retrospective surgical outcomes study based on administrative data. Administrative databases contain data that were initially collected for purposes other than scientific research. Whereas the prospective randomized clinical trial is familiar to most surgeons, surgical outcomes research based on administrative data constitutes a genre of investigation that is often unfamiliar to and even disparaged by the surgical community. In the present article, the strengths and weaknesses of both prospective randomized clinical trials and retrospective surgical outcomes research are discussed. Specifically, the advantages and limitations of investigations based on large administrative databases are outlined. Because both study designs play an important role in surgical research, carefully designed and implemented surgical outcomes research based on administrative data should be viewed as being complementary and not inferior to prospective randomized clinical trials.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer‐Verlag</pub><pmid>16485067</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00268-005-0156-0</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0364-2313 |
| ispartof | World journal of surgery, 2006-03, Vol.30 (3), p.255-266 |
| issn | 0364-2313 1432-2323 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67678517 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Administrative Data Administrative Database Appendicitis Biological and medical sciences Biomedical Research Databases, Factual General aspects General Surgery Health Services Accessibility Humans Medical sciences Nationwide Inpatient Sample Open Appendectomy Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods Prospective Studies Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Research Design Retrospective Studies Statistics as Topic |
| title | Surgical Outcomes Research Based on Administrative Data: Inferior or Complementary to Prospective Randomized Clinical Trials? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T20%3A40%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Surgical%20Outcomes%20Research%20Based%20on%20Administrative%20Data:%20Inferior%20or%20Complementary%20to%20Prospective%20Randomized%20Clinical%20Trials?&rft.jtitle=World%20journal%20of%20surgery&rft.au=Guller,%20Ulrich&rft.date=2006-03&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=255&rft.epage=266&rft.pages=255-266&rft.issn=0364-2313&rft.eissn=1432-2323&rft.coden=WJSUDI&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00268-005-0156-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67678517%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=219944782&rft_id=info:pmid/16485067&rfr_iscdi=true |