Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24597489›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2014

Evaluating bias due to data linkage error in electronic healthcare records.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. GUILD: GUidance for Information about Linking Data sets.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2018
    Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Estimating the Number of Persons with HIV in Jails via Web Scraping and Record Linkage.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, (Statistics in Society) · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Linking education and hospital data in England: linkage process and quality.International journal of population data science · 2021
    Article
  20. Fold-stratified cross-validation for unbiased and privacy-preserving federated learning.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    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.

Katie HarronInstitute of Child Health, University College London, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1 N 1EH, UK. katie.harron.10@ucl.ac.uk.
Angie Wade
Ruth Gilbert
Berit Muller-Pebody
Harvey Goldstein

Funding

Department of Health 08/13/47Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLinkage of electronic healthcare records is becoming increasingly important for research purposes. However, linkage error due to mis-recorded or missing identifiers can lead to biased results. We evaluated the impact of linkage error on estimated infection rates using two different methods for classifying links: highest-weight (HW) classification using probabilistic match weights and prior-informed imputation (PII) using match probabilities.

methodsA gold-standard dataset was created through deterministic linkage of unique identifiers in admission data from two hospitals and infection data recorded at the hospital laboratories (original data). Unique identifiers were then removed and data were re-linked by date of birth, sex and Soundex using two classification methods: i) HW classification - accepting the candidate record with the highest weight exceeding a threshold and ii) PII-imputing values from a match probability distribution. To evaluate methods for linking data with different error rates, non-random error and different match rates, we generated simulation data. Each set of simulated files was linked using both classification methods. Infection rates in the linked data were compared with those in the gold-standard data.

resultsIn the original gold-standard data, 1496/20924 admissions linked to an infection. In the linked original data, PII provided least biased results: 1481 and 1457 infections (upper/lower thresholds) compared with 1316 and 1287 (HW upper/lower thresholds). In the simulated data, substantial bias (up to 112%) was introduced when linkage error varied by hospital. Bias was also greater when the match rate was low or the identifier error rate was high and in these cases, PII performed better than HW classification at reducing bias due to false-matches.

conclusionsThis study highlights the importance of evaluating the potential impact of linkage error on results. PII can help incorporate linkage uncertainty into analysis and reduce bias due to linkage error, without requiring identifiers.

Indexed as

BiasData CollectionElectronic Health RecordsHospitalizationHumansMedical Record Linkage

Identifiers

PMID24597489
PMCPMC4015706

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.