Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39845287›Full record

ReviewJAMIA open2025

Accuracy of privacy preserving record linkage for real world data in the United States: a systemic review.

Khushi Tyagi, Sarah J Willis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Khushi TyagiUS Commercial Office, Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY 10001, United States.
Sarah J WillisUS Commercial Office, Pfizer, Inc., Cambridge, MA 02139, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4254-3705

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Examine the accuracy of privacy preserving record linkage (PPRL) matches in real world data (RWD). Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify articles evaluating PPRL methods from January 1, 2013 to June 15, 2023. Eligible studies included original research reporting quantitative metrics such as precision and recall in health-related data sources. Covidence software was used to manage the review process. Results: Five studies met our inclusion criteria. Tokenization and hash functions were used to hash and encrypt personally identifiable information (PII) including first and last names, dates of birth (DOB), and Social Security Numbers (SSNs) in a variety of RWD. All identified studies utilized deterministic matching. Combinations of tokenized or hashed PII that included "quasi-identifiers" like names and DOBs had consistently high precision (>95%) but lower recall, likely due to misspelled or inconsistently spelled names and name changes. SSN-based combinations demonstrated high precision but variable recall due to incomplete SSN data in RWD. Studies that employed algorithms in which at least one match was identified from a specified set of PII combinations provided high precision and high recall. Discussion: The systematic review indicates that PPRL methods generally provide highly accurate patient data linkage while maintaining privacy. Conclusions: Researchers should carefully consider the completeness and stability of each PII element selected for PPRL and may want to employ a strategy that allows for patient records to be matched if they meet at least one of several combinations of PII.

Indexed as

administrative claimsdata anonymizationelectronic health recordshealthcarepersonally identifiable informationprivacy preserving record linkage

Identifiers

PMID39845287
PMCPMC11752849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.