Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

In Defense of Documentary Cameras

In Defense of Documentary Cameras Letters ries; everyday interactions with chairs produce 95 times more set, and related documentation, is available to the general hospital visits; and injuries from unintentional bites and stings public. The patient case narratives we used are not available are over 380 times more prevalent in emergency depart- on the public use data set because of preexisting rules of non- ments than tanning bed mishaps. These comparisons to trau- disclosure and confidentiality provisions agreed upon by all mas caused by physical objects are relevant because many of federal participants funding the NEISS-AIP. the reported tanning bed injuries were not related to UV light As noted in our article, we used a text mining process on but to physical equipment. the patient case narratives with explicit and objective inclu- It is disappointing that the CDC will not release its data sion and exclusion criteria to ensure that included cases rep- when all appearances suggest that the research may not have resented injuries attributable to indoor tanning. Cases were ini- been accurately portrayed. tially selected using a keyword search. Each case narrative was reviewed and classified by 3 study researchers to confirm that Gregory Kohs, MA the injuries were attributable to indoor http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA Internal Medicine American Medical Association

In Defense of Documentary Cameras

JAMA Internal Medicine , Volume 175 (9) – Sep 1, 2015

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/in-defense-of-documentary-cameras-ddxJXKX7Md
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright 2015 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
2168-6106
eISSN
2168-6114
DOI
10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3401
pmid
26348520
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Letters ries; everyday interactions with chairs produce 95 times more set, and related documentation, is available to the general hospital visits; and injuries from unintentional bites and stings public. The patient case narratives we used are not available are over 380 times more prevalent in emergency depart- on the public use data set because of preexisting rules of non- ments than tanning bed mishaps. These comparisons to trau- disclosure and confidentiality provisions agreed upon by all mas caused by physical objects are relevant because many of federal participants funding the NEISS-AIP. the reported tanning bed injuries were not related to UV light As noted in our article, we used a text mining process on but to physical equipment. the patient case narratives with explicit and objective inclu- It is disappointing that the CDC will not release its data sion and exclusion criteria to ensure that included cases rep- when all appearances suggest that the research may not have resented injuries attributable to indoor tanning. Cases were ini- been accurately portrayed. tially selected using a keyword search. Each case narrative was reviewed and classified by 3 study researchers to confirm that Gregory Kohs, MA the injuries were attributable to indoor

Journal

JAMA Internal MedicineAmerican Medical Association

Published: Sep 1, 2015

References