ArticleLearning health systems2022
A process to deduplicate individuals for regional chronic disease prevalence estimates using a distributed data network of electronic health records.
Article in Learning health systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Learning health systems can help estimate chronic disease prevalence through distributed data networks (DDNs). Concerns remain about bias introduced to DDN prevalence estimates when individuals seeking care across systems are counted multiple times. This paper describes a process to deduplicate individuals for DDN prevalence estimates. Methods: We operationalized a two-step deduplication process, leveraging health information exchange (HIE)-assigned network identifiers, within the Colorado Health Observation Regional Data Service (CHORDS) DDN. We generated prevalence estimates for type 1 and type 2 diabetes among pediatric patients (0-17 years) with at least one 2017 encounter in one of two geographically-proximate DDN partners. We assessed the extent of cross-system duplication and its effect on prevalence estimates. Results: We identified 218 437 unique pediatric patients seen across systems during 2017, including 7628 (3.5%) seen in both. We found no measurable difference in prevalence after deduplication. The number of cases we identified differed slightly by data reconciliation strategy. Concordance of linked patients' demographic attributes varied by attribute. Conclusions: We implemented an HIE-dependent, extensible process that deduplicates individuals for less biased prevalence estimates in a DDN. Our null pilot findings have limited generalizability. Overlap was small and likely insufficient to influence prevalence estimates. Other factors, including the number and size of partners, the matching algorithm, and the electronic phenotype may influence the degree of deduplication bias. Additional use cases may help improve understanding of duplication bias and reveal other principles and insights. This study informed how DDNs could support learning health systems' response to public health challenges and improve regional health.
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.