Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30176856›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Sociodemographic differences in linkage error: an examination of four large-scale datasets.

Sean Randall, Adrian Brown, James Boyd, Rainer Schnell, Christian Borgs, Anna Ferrante

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Sean RandallCentre for Data Linkage, Curtin University, Perth, 6849, Western Australia. sean.randall@curtin.edu.au.
Adrian BrownCentre for Data Linkage, Curtin University, Perth, 6849, Western Australia.
James BoydCentre for Data Linkage, Curtin University, Perth, 6849, Western Australia.
Rainer SchnellGerman Record Linkage Center, University of Duisburg-Essen, D-47057, Duisburg, Germany.
Christian BorgsGerman Record Linkage Center, University of Duisburg-Essen, D-47057, Duisburg, Germany.
Anna FerranteCentre for Data Linkage, Curtin University, Perth, 6849, Western Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecord linkage is an important tool for epidemiologists and health planners. Record linkage studies will generally contain some level of residual record linkage error, where individual records are either incorrectly marked as belonging to the same individual, or incorrectly marked as belonging to separate individuals. A key question is whether errors in linkage quality are distributed evenly throughout the population, or whether certain subgroups will exhibit higher rates of error. Previous investigations of this issue have typically compared linked and un-linked records, which can conflate bias caused by record linkage error, with bias caused by missing records (data capture errors).

methodsFour large administrative datasets were individually de-duplicated, with results compared to an available 'gold-standard' benchmark, allowing us to avoid methodological issues with comparing linked and un-linked records. Results were compared by gender, age, geographic remoteness (major cities, regional or remote) and socioeconomic status.

resultsResults varied between datasets, and by sociodemographic characteristic. The most consistent findings were worse linkage quality for younger individuals (seen in all four datasets) and worse linkage quality for those living in remote areas (seen in three of four datasets). The linkage quality within sociodemographic categories varied between datasets, with the associations with linkage error reversed across different datasets due to quirks of the specific data collection mechanisms and data sharing practices.

conclusionsThese results suggest caution should be taken both when linking younger individuals and those in remote areas, and when analysing linked data from these subgroups. Further research is required to determine the ramifications of worse linkage quality in these subpopulations on research outcomes.

Indexed as

Social ClassAdolescentAdultAgedAustraliaBenchmarkingBiasChildChild, PreschoolCitiesData CollectionFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInformation DisseminationBiasMethodological researchRecord linkageSociodemographic differences

Identifiers

PMID30176856
PMCPMC6122711

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.