To the Editor In the June issue of JAMA Surgery, health services research experts outlined common secondary data sets and provided a checklist to guide researchers when analyzing these data.1 However, a single data set is often insufficient to answer many research questions appropriately. This may be because the data set (1) does not have enough information to control for confounding variables (eg, administrative claims data without enough clinical information), (2) does not include data over multiple clinical encounters (eg, hospitalization data sets without any patient follow-up information), or (3) was collected for a different purpose than the research question (eg, utilization data without clinical information).
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Squitieri L, Russell TA, Ko CY. When One Data Set Is Insufficient—Things to Consider When Linking Secondary Data. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(2):186–187. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2018.4750
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: