You are here

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Review
Secondary databases in gynecologic cancer research
  1. Katherine Hicks-Courant1,2,
  2. Emily Meichun Ko2,3,4,
  3. Koji Matsuo5,6,
  4. Alexander Melamed7,8,
  5. Dimitrios Nasioudis2,
  6. Jose Alejandro Rauh-Hain9,
  7. Shitanshu Uppal10,
  8. Jason D Wright11 and
  9. Pedro T Ramirez12
    1. 1Ann B. Barshinger Cancer Institute, Lancaster General Health, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, USA
    2. 2Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
    3. 3Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
    4. 4Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
    5. 5Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
    6. 6USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
    7. 7Vincent Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
    8. 8Department of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
    9. 9Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
    10. 10Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    11. 11Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
    12. 12Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
    1. Correspondence to Dr Katherine Hicks-Courant, Ann B. Barshinger Cancer Institute, Lancaster General Health, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, USA; katherine.hicks-courant2{at}pennmedicine.upenn.edu

    Abstract

    Observational and cohort studies using large databases have made important contributions to gynecologic oncology. Knowledge of the advantages and potential limitations of commonly used databases benefits both readers and reviewers. In this review, researchers familiar with National Cancer Database (NCDB), Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER), SEER-Medicare, MarketScan, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and Premier, describe each database, its included data, access, management, storage, highlights, and limitations. A better understanding of these commonly used datasets can help readers, reviewers, and researchers to more effectively interpret and apply study results, evaluate new research studies, and develop compelling and practice-changing research.

    • Retrospective Study
    • Cross-Sectional Studies
    • Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • Costs and Cost Analysis
    • Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

    https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2024-005677

    Statistics from Altmetric.com

      Request Permissions

      If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

      View Full Text

      Footnotes

      • X @khickscourant, @pedroramirezMD

      • Contributors All authors contributed to concept development, writing, and revising the manuscript.

      • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

      • Competing interests None declared.

      • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.