Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24376874›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Linkage, evaluation and analysis of national electronic healthcare data: application to providing enhanced blood-stream infection surveillance in paediatric intensive care.

Katie Harron, Harvey Goldstein, Angie Wade, Berit Muller-Pebody, Roger Parslow, Ruth Gilbert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Reflections on modern methods: linkage error bias.International journal of epidemiology · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A scaling approach to record linkage.Statistics in medicine · 2017
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Katie HarronInstitute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Harvey GoldsteinInstitute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom ; Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Angie WadeInstitute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Berit Muller-PebodyHealthcare Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistance Department, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Roger ParslowDivision of Epidemiology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Ruth GilbertInstitute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLinkage of risk-factor data for blood-stream infection (BSI) in paediatric intensive care (PICU) with bacteraemia surveillance data to monitor risk-adjusted infection rates in PICU is complicated by a lack of unique identifiers and under-ascertainment in the national surveillance system. We linked, evaluated and performed preliminary analyses on these data to provide a practical guide on the steps required to handle linkage of such complex data sources.

methodsData on PICU admissions in England and Wales for 2003-2010 were extracted from the Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network. Records of all positive isolates from blood cultures taken for children <16 years and captured by the national voluntary laboratory surveillance system for 2003-2010 were extracted from the Public Health England database, LabBase2. "Gold-standard" datasets with unique identifiers were obtained directly from three laboratories, containing microbiology reports that were eligible for submission to LabBase2 (defined as "clinically significant" by laboratory microbiologists). Reports in the gold-standard datasets were compared to those in LabBase2 to estimate ascertainment in LabBase2. Linkage evaluated by comparing results from two classification methods (highest-weight classification of match weights and prior-informed imputation using match probabilities) with linked records in the gold-standard data. BSI rate was estimated as the proportion of admissions associated with at least one BSI.

resultsReporting gaps were identified in 548/2596 lab-months of LabBase2. Ascertainment of clinically significant BSI in the remaining months was approximately 80-95%. Prior-informed imputation provided the least biased estimate of BSI rate (5.8% of admissions). Adjusting for ascertainment, the estimated BSI rate was 6.1-7.3%.

conclusionLinkage of PICU admission data with national BSI surveillance provides the opportunity for enhanced surveillance but analyses based on these data need to take account of biases due to ascertainment and linkage error. This study provides a generalisable guide for linkage, evaluation and analysis of complex electronic healthcare data.

Indexed as

Epidemiological MonitoringIntensive Care Units, PediatricBacteremiaChildData CollectionElectronic Health RecordsHumansInformation Dissemination

Identifiers

PMID24376874
PMCPMC3869925

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.