Literature DB >> 18579842

Ignoring dependency between linking variables and its impact on the outcome of probabilistic record linkage studies.

Miranda Tromp1, Nora Méray, Anita C J Ravelli, Johannes B Reitsma, Gouke J Bonsel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES This study sought to examine the differences between ignoring (naïve) and incorporating dependency (nonnaïve) among linkage variables on the outcome of a probabilistic record linkage study. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS We used the outcomes of a previously developed probabilistic linkage procedure for different registries in perinatal care assuming independence among linkage variables. We estimated the impact of ignoring dependency by re-estimating the linkage weights after constructing a variable that combines the outcomes of the comparison of 2 correlated linking variables. The results of the original naïve and the new nonnaïve strategy were systematically compared for 3 scenarios: the empirical dataset using 9 variables, the empirical dataset using 5 variables, and a simulated dataset using 5 variables. RESULTS The linking weight for agreement on 2 correlated variables among nonmatches was estimated considerably higher in the naïve strategy than in the nonnaïve strategy (16.87 vs. 13.55). Therefore, ignoring dependency overestimates the amount of identifying information if both correlated variables agree. The impact on the number of pairs that was classified differently with both approaches was modest in the situation in which there were many different linking variables but grew substantially with fewer variables. The simulation study confirmed the results of the empirical study and suggests that the number of misclassifications can increase substantially by ignoring dependency under less favorable linking conditions. CONCLUSION Dependency often exists between linking variables and has the potential to bias the outcome of a linkage study. The nonnaïve approach is a straightforward method for creating linking weights that accommodate dependency. The impact on the number of misclassifications depends on the quality and number of linking variables relative to the number of correlated linking variables.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18579842      PMCID: PMC2528043          DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M2265

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   4.497


  13 in total

1.  Record linkage of health care insurance claims.

Authors:  T W Victor; R M Mera
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2001 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  [Possibilities for anonymous follow-up studies of patients in Dutch national medical registrations using the Municipal Population Register: a pilot study].

Authors:  J B Reitsma; J W Kardaun; E Gevers; A de Bruin; J van der Wal; G J Bonsel
Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd       Date:  2003-11-15

3.  Which are the best identifiers for record linkage?

Authors:  Catherine Quantin; Christine Binquet; Karima Bourquard; Ronny Pattisina; Béatrice Gouyon-Cornet; Cyril Ferdynus; Jean-Bernard Gouyon; Allaert François-André
Journal:  Med Inform Internet Med       Date:  2004 Sep-Dec

4.  Decision analysis for the assessment of a record linkage procedure: application to a perinatal network.

Authors:  C Quantin; C Binquet; F A Allaert; B Cornet; R Pattisina; G Leteuff; C Ferdynus; J B Gouyon
Journal:  Methods Inf Med       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.176

Review 5.  Use of computerized record linkage in cohort studies.

Authors:  G R Howe
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 6.222

6.  The urge to merge: linking vital statistics records and Medicaid claims.

Authors:  R M Bell; J Keesey; T Richards
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Population based ascertainment of twins and their siblings, born in Western Australia 1980 to 1992, through the construction and validation of a maternally linked database of siblings.

Authors:  Maxine L Croft; Anne W Read; Nicholas de Klerk; Janice Hansen; Jennifer J Kurinczuk
Journal:  Twin Res       Date:  2002-10

8.  The art and science of record linkage: methods that work with few identifiers.

Authors:  L L Roos; A Wajda; J P Nicol
Journal:  Comput Biol Med       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 4.589

9.  Linking hospital discharge and death records--accuracy and sources of bias.

Authors:  David S Zingmond; Zhishen Ye; Susan L Ettner; Honghu Liu
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  Probabilistic record linkage is a valid and transparent tool to combine databases without a patient identification number.

Authors:  Nora Méray; Johannes B Reitsma; Anita C J Ravelli; Gouke J Bonsel
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-05-17       Impact factor: 6.437

View more
  6 in total

1.  A scaling approach to record linkage.

Authors:  Harvey Goldstein; Katie Harron; Mario Cortina-Borja
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2017-03-16       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  A simple two-step procedure using the Fellegi-Sunter model for frequency-based record linkage.

Authors:  Huiping Xu; Xiaochun Li; Shaun Grannis
Journal:  J Appl Stat       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 1.416

3.  A practical approach for incorporating dependence among fields in probabilistic record linkage.

Authors:  Joanne K Daggy; Huiping Xu; Siu L Hui; Roland E Gamache; Shaun J Grannis
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 2.796

4.  Utilising identifier error variation in linkage of large administrative data sources.

Authors:  Katie Harron; Gareth Hagger-Johnson; Ruth Gilbert; Harvey Goldstein
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-02-07       Impact factor: 4.615

5.  Linkage of Australian national registry data using a statistical linkage key.

Authors:  Tim G Coulson; Michael Bailey; Chris Reid; Gil Shardey; Jenni Williams-Spence; Sue Huckson; Shaila Chavan; David Pilcher
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-02-02       Impact factor: 2.796

6.  Evaluating bias due to data linkage error in electronic healthcare records.

Authors:  Katie Harron; Angie Wade; Ruth Gilbert; Berit Muller-Pebody; Harvey Goldstein
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-03-05       Impact factor: 4.615

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.