ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2017
Evaluation of identifier field agreement in linked neonatal records.
Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Multifunctional, Low Cost and Sustainable Neonatal Database System.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Assessing the impact of privacy-preserving record linkage on record overlap and patient demographic and clinical characteristics in PCORnet®, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Enrollment and outcomes of home visiting for mothers with and without a history of out-of-home care.Infant mental health journal · 2022Article
- Developmental Disorders and Medical Complications Among Infants with Subclinical Intrauterine Opioid Exposures.Population health management · 2019Article
- Surveillance of Intrauterine Opioid Exposures Using Electronic Health Records.Population health management · 2018Article
- Sociodemographic differences in linkage error: an examination of four large-scale datasets.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Implementation of a Regional Perinatal Data Repository from Clinical and Billing Records.Maternal and child health journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo better address barriers arising from missing and unreliable identifiers in neonatal medical records, we evaluated agreement and discordance among traditional and non-traditional linkage fields within a linked neonatal data set. STUDY
designThe retrospective, descriptive analysis represents infants born from 2013 to 2015. We linked children's hospital neonatal physician billing records to newborn medical records originating from an academic delivery hospital and evaluated rates of agreement, discordance and missingness for a set of 12 identifier field pairs used in the linkage algorithm.
resultsWe linked 7293 of 7404 physician billing records (98.5%), all of which were deemed valid upon manual review. Linked records contained a mean of 9.1 matching and 1.6 non-matching identifier pairs. Only 4.8% had complete agreement among all 12 identifier pairs.
conclusionOur approach to selection of linkage variables and data formatting preparatory to linkage have generalizability, which may inform future neonatal and perinatal record linkage efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.