Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24001000›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2013

A practical approach for incorporating dependence among fields in probabilistic record linkage.

Joanne K Daggy, Huiping Xu, Siu L Hui, Roland E Gamache, Shaun J Grannis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Evaluating the effect of data standardization and validation on patient matching accuracy.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    Article
  8. Demystifying probabilistic linkage: Common myths and misconceptions.International journal of population data science · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Joanne K DaggyDepartment of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. jdaggy2@iupui.edu.
Huiping Xu
Siu L Hui
Roland E Gamache
Shaun J Grannis

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMethods for linking real-world healthcare data often use a latent class model, where the latent, or unknown, class is the true match status of candidate record-pairs. This commonly used model assumes that agreement patterns among multiple fields within a latent class are independent. When this assumption is violated, various approaches, including the most commonly proposed loglinear models, have been suggested to account for conditional dependence.

methodsWe present a step-by-step guide to identify important dependencies between fields through a correlation residual plot and demonstrate how they can be incorporated into loglinear models for record linkage. This method is applied to healthcare data from the patient registry for a large county health department.

resultsOur method could be readily implemented using standard software (with code supplied) to produce an overall better model fit as measured by BIC and deviance. Finding the most parsimonious model is known to reduce bias in parameter estimates.

conclusionsThis novel approach identifies and accommodates conditional dependence in the context of record linkage. The conditional dependence model is recommended for routine use due to its flexibility for incorporating conditional dependence and easy implementation using existing software.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalHumansMedical Record Linkage

Identifiers

PMID24001000
PMCPMC3766252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.