M Tromp1, A C J Ravelli, N Méray, J B Reitsma, G J Bonsel. 1. Department of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.tromp@amc.uva.nl
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe an efficient, generalizable approach to validate probabilistic record linkage results, in particular by a model-guided detection of linking errors, and to apply this approach to validate linkage of admissions of newborns. METHODS: Our double-blind validation procedure consisted of three steps: sample selection, data collection and data analysis. The linked Dutch national newborn admission registry contained 30,082 records for 2001 including readmissions (7.4%) and twins (9.7%). A highly informative sample was selected from the linked file by oversampling uncertain links based on model-derived linking weight. Four hundred and eight fax forms with minimal registry information (admissions of 191 children) were sent out to different pediatric units. The pediatricians were asked to create a short detailed patient history from independent sources. The linkage status and additional record data was validated against this external information. RESULTS: Response rate was 97% (395/408 faxes). Accuracy of the linkage of singleton admissions was high: except for some expected errors in the uncertain area (0.02% of record pairs), linkage was error-free. Validation of multiple birth readmissions showed 37% linkage errors due to low data quality of the multiple birth variables. The quality of the linked registry file was still high; only 1.7% of the children were from a multiple birth with multiple admissions, resulting in less than 1% linking error. CONCLUSIONS: Our external validation procedure of record linkage was feasible, efficient, and informative about identifying the source of the errors.
OBJECTIVE: To describe an efficient, generalizable approach to validate probabilistic record linkage results, in particular by a model-guided detection of linking errors, and to apply this approach to validate linkage of admissions of newborns. METHODS: Our double-blind validation procedure consisted of three steps: sample selection, data collection and data analysis. The linked Dutch national newborn admission registry contained 30,082 records for 2001 including readmissions (7.4%) and twins (9.7%). A highly informative sample was selected from the linked file by oversampling uncertain links based on model-derived linking weight. Four hundred and eight fax forms with minimal registry information (admissions of 191 children) were sent out to different pediatric units. The pediatricians were asked to create a short detailed patient history from independent sources. The linkage status and additional record data was validated against this external information. RESULTS: Response rate was 97% (395/408 faxes). Accuracy of the linkage of singleton admissions was high: except for some expected errors in the uncertain area (0.02% of record pairs), linkage was error-free. Validation of multiple birth readmissions showed 37% linkage errors due to low data quality of the multiple birth variables. The quality of the linked registry file was still high; only 1.7% of the children were from a multiple birth with multiple admissions, resulting in less than 1% linking error. CONCLUSIONS: Our external validation procedure of record linkage was feasible, efficient, and informative about identifying the source of the errors.
Authors: Myrthe J C S Peelen; Brenda M Kazemier; Anita C J Ravelli; Christianne J M de Groot; Joris A M van der Post; Ben W J Mol; Marjolein Kok; Petra J Hajenius Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: M Pontesilli; M H Hof; A C J Ravelli; A J van Altena; A T Soufan; B W Mol; E H Kostelijk; E Slappendel; D Consten; A E P Cantineau; L A J van der Westerlaken; W van Inzen; J C M Dumoulin; L Ramos; E B Baart; F J M Broekmans; P M Rijnders; M H J M Curfs; S Mastenbroek; S Repping; T J Roseboom; R C Painter Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Brenda L Scholten; Godelieve C M L Page-Christiaens; Arie Franx; Chantal W P M Hukkelhoven; Maria P H Koster Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: A C J Ravelli; M Tromp; M Eskes; J C Droog; J A M van der Post; K J Jager; B W Mol; J B Reitsma Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2010-08-18 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Pien M Offerhaus; Caroline Geerts; Ank de Jonge; Chantal W P M Hukkelhoven; Jos W R Twisk; Antoine L M Lagro-Janssen Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Ronald Gijsen; Chantal W P M Hukkelhoven; C Maarten A Schipper; Uzor C Ogbu; Mieneke de Bruin-Kooistra; Gert P Westert Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2012-09-08 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Miranda Tromp; Martine Eskes; Johannes B Reitsma; Jan Jaap H M Erwich; Hens A A Brouwers; Greta C Rijninks-van Driel; Gouke J Bonsel; Anita C J Ravelli Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-04-14 Impact factor: 3.295