ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2022
Evaluation of real-world referential and probabilistic patient matching to advance patient identification strategy.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the Accuracy of Probabilistic Record Linkage Across Sociodemographic Categories in 4 Databases: Exploratory Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Linking Electronic Health Records for Multiple Sclerosis Research: Comparative Study of Deterministic, Probabilistic, and Machine Learning Linkage Methods.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Linking clinical trial data with real-world data for enhanced clinical evidence generation: methodological considerations and recommendations.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Enhancing Patient Identification Accuracy in Shared Child Health Records: a Hybrid Approach for the Lao Language Context.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Data linkage multiplies research insights across diverse healthcare sectors.Communications medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluating Privacy-Preserving Record Linkage in Merging Cancer Registry Data and Electronic Health Records.Journal of registry management · 2025Article
- Linking Patient Encounters across Primary and Ancillary Electronic Health Record Systems: A Comparison of Two Approaches.ACI open · 2024Article
- Avenues for Strengthening PCORnet's Capacity to Advance Patient-Centered Economic Outcomes in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR).Medical care · 2023Article
- A comprehensive review of machine learning algorithms and their application in geriatric medicine: present and future.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2023Review
- A framework for a consistent and reproducible evaluation of manual review for patient matching algorithms.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study sought both to support evidence-based patient identity policy development by illustrating an approach for formally evaluating operational matching methods, and also to characterize the performance of both referential and probabilistic patient matching algorithms using real-world demographic data. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe assessed matching accuracy for referential and probabilistic matching algorithms using a manually reviewed 30 000 record gold standard reference dataset derived from a large health information exchange containing over 47 million patient registrations. We applied referential and probabilistic algorithms to this dataset and compared the outputs to the gold standard. We computed performance metrics including sensitivity (recall), positive predictive value (precision), and F-score for each algorithm.
resultsThe probabilistic algorithm exhibited sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and F-score of .6366, 0.9995, and 0.7778, respectively. The referential algorithm exhibited corresponding sensitivity, PPV, and F-score values of 0.9351, 0.9996, and 0.9663, respectively. Treating discordant and limited-data records as nonmatches increased referential match sensitivity to 0.9578. Compared to the more traditional probabilistic approach, referential matching exhibits greater accuracy.
conclusionsReferential patient matching, an increasingly popular method among health IT vendors, demonstrated notably greater accuracy than a more traditional probabilistic approach without the adaptation of the algorithm to the data that the traditional probabilistic approach usually requires. Health IT policymakers, including the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), should explore strategies to expand the evidence base for real-world matching system performance, given the need for an evidence-based patient identity strategy.
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.