Conducting High-Value Secondary Dataset Analysis: An Introductory Guide and Resources

Secondary analyses of large datasets provide a mechanism for researchers to address high impact questions that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to study. This paper presents a guide to assist investigators interested in conducting secondary data analysis, including advice on the process of successful secondary data analysis as well as a brief summary of high-value datasets and online resources for researchers, including the SGIM dataset compendium (www.sgim.org/go/datasets). The same basic research principles that apply to primary data analysis apply to secondary data analysis, including the development of a clear and clinically relevant research question, study sample, appropriate measures, and a thoughtful analytic approach. A real-world case description illustrates key steps: (1) define your research topic and question; (2) select a dataset; (3) get to know your dataset; and (4) structure your analysis and presentation of findings in a way that is clinically meaningful. Secondary dataset analysis is a well-established methodology. Secondary analysis is particularly valuable for junior investigators, who have limited time and resources to demonstrate expertise and productivity

Self-reported colorectal cancer screening of Medicare beneficiaries in family medicine vs. internal medicine practices in the United States: a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The benefit of screening for decreasing the risk of death from colorectal cancer (CRC) has been shown, yet many patients in primary care are still not undergoing screening according to guidelines. There are known variations in delivery of preventive health care services among primary care physicians. This study compared self-reported CRC screening rates and patient awareness of the need for CRC screening of patients receiving care from family medicine (FPs) vs. internal medicine (internists) physicians.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Nationally representative sample of non-institutionalized beneficiaries who received medical care from FPs or internists in 2006 (using Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey). The main outcome was the percentage of patients screened in 2007. We also examined the percentage of patients offered screening.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients of FPs, compared to those of internists, were less likely to have received an FOBT kit or undergone home FOBT, even after accounting for patients' characteristics. Compared to internists, FPs' patients were more likely to have heard of colonoscopy, but were less likely to receive a screening colonoscopy recommendation (18% vs. 27%), or undergo a colonoscopy (43% vs. 46%, adjusted odds ratios [AOR], 95% confidence interval [CI]-- 0.65, 0.51-0.81) or any CRC screening (52% vs. 60%, AOR, CI--0.80, 0.68-0.94). Among subgroups examined, higher income beneficiaries receiving care from internists had the highest screening rate (68%), while disabled beneficiaries receiving care from FPs had the lowest screening rate (34%).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Patients cared for by FPs had a lower rate of screening compared to those cared for by internists, despite equal or higher levels of awareness; a difference that remained statistically significant after accounting for socioeconomic status and access to healthcare. Both groups of patients remained below the national goal of 70 percent.</p

Intracameral phenylephrine and ketorolac injection (OMS302) for maintenance of intraoperative pupil diameter and&nbsp;reduction of postoperative pain in intraocular lens replacement with&nbsp;phacoemulsification [Corrigendum]

Lindstrom RL, Loden JC, Walters TROn page 1736, last line of the first paragraph in the Materials and methods section, &ldquo;NCT01193127&rdquo; should be &ldquo;NCT01579565&rdquo;.Read the original articl