Dear Colleagues
I am recently considering to perform a SEER-Based analysis. However, i am confused whether it is considered Primary or Secondary research.
- On one hand, you are woking on patient-level data (like primary).
- On the other hand, you were not the data collector, you just analyze and interpret them.
I am interested in hearing your point of view.
Kind Regards
the answer here will depend on your definition of primary or secondary research
I believe research is considered primary when you use raw unpublished data to describe/analyze it and come up with a conclusion. So like this, SEER-based analysis will be considered a primary research.
If we want to take the other point of view into consideration, will we further define primary or secondary research based on who collects the data?
Let's put it in another way, suppose you use patients information from your hospital (which is an accumulative effort done by all physicians who have worked in this hospital) to do a retrospective cohort. Will this cohort be considered a primary or secondary research? In this scenario, you may also have very limited (or maybe no) contribution to the collection of this data. So technically, the only two differences between this example and the SEER one are: 1) you don't actually work at NCI, 2) SEER will give you the data even if you don't work there, whereas usually hospitals don't.
So this will lead us to other questions.. Will the distinction between primary and secondary depend on where the researcher work? or for whom is the data available? or will we also call retrospective cohorts secondary research?
In conclusion, the first step to answer this question is to put a clear definition then judge accordingly. However, I think the first assumption is the more logical one, and SEER-based studies are considered primary.
I consider this secondary or even tertiary reseach approaches.
Wolfgang Dörr
the answer here will depend on your definition of primary or secondary research
I believe research is considered primary when you use raw unpublished data to describe/analyze it and come up with a conclusion. So like this, SEER-based analysis will be considered a primary research.
If we want to take the other point of view into consideration, will we further define primary or secondary research based on who collects the data?
Let's put it in another way, suppose you use patients information from your hospital (which is an accumulative effort done by all physicians who have worked in this hospital) to do a retrospective cohort. Will this cohort be considered a primary or secondary research? In this scenario, you may also have very limited (or maybe no) contribution to the collection of this data. So technically, the only two differences between this example and the SEER one are: 1) you don't actually work at NCI, 2) SEER will give you the data even if you don't work there, whereas usually hospitals don't.
So this will lead us to other questions.. Will the distinction between primary and secondary depend on where the researcher work? or for whom is the data available? or will we also call retrospective cohorts secondary research?
In conclusion, the first step to answer this question is to put a clear definition then judge accordingly. However, I think the first assumption is the more logical one, and SEER-based studies are considered primary.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publications