OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity and impact of record linkage using name code compared to full name records. METHODS: A registry of 45,419 opioid substitution clients (1985-2007) was linked with national population-based death and cancer registries using registrant's name, date of birth, sex, state, postcode and date of death. Records were linked using full name and then using the first two letters of the given and surname (2×2 name code). Sensitivity and specificity were computed and regression analysis used to identify factors related to linkage accuracy. Standardised mortality ratios (SMR) and standardised cancer incidence ratios (SIR) were estimated. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of name code compared to full name linkage were 65.31% and 99.91% for death records and 76.81% and 99.89% for cancer records. Registrants' age and sex and accuracy of the registries were associated with risk of false linkages. Death and cancer risks (SMR 6.98, 95%CI 6.77-7.19; SIR 1.16, 95%CI 1.08-1.24) were significantly under-estimated using name code linkage (SMR 4.39, 95%CI 4.23-4.56; SIR 0.92, 95%CI 0.85-0.99). CONCLUSION: Record linkage using 2×2 name code has low sensitivity but high specificity, resulting in conservative estimates of death and cancer risk. This may translate to meaningful differences in outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity and impact of record linkage using name code compared to full name records. METHODS: A registry of 45,419 opioid substitution clients (1985-2007) was linked with national population-based death and cancer registries using registrant's name, date of birth, sex, state, postcode and date of death. Records were linked using full name and then using the first two letters of the given and surname (2×2 name code). Sensitivity and specificity were computed and regression analysis used to identify factors related to linkage accuracy. Standardised mortality ratios (SMR) and standardised cancer incidence ratios (SIR) were estimated. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of name code compared to full name linkage were 65.31% and 99.91% for death records and 76.81% and 99.89% for cancer records. Registrants' age and sex and accuracy of the registries were associated with risk of false linkages. Death and cancer risks (SMR 6.98, 95%CI 6.77-7.19; SIR 1.16, 95%CI 1.08-1.24) were significantly under-estimated using name code linkage (SMR 4.39, 95%CI 4.23-4.56; SIR 0.92, 95%CI 0.85-0.99). CONCLUSION: Record linkage using 2×2 name code has low sensitivity but high specificity, resulting in conservative estimates of death and cancer risk. This may translate to meaningful differences in outcomes.
Authors: Fengyi Jin; Claire M Vajdic; Matthew Law; Janaki Amin; Marina van Leeuwen; Skye McGregor; I Mary Poynten; David J Templeton; Andrew E Grulich Journal: AIDS Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Kylie-Ann Mallitt; David P Wilson; James Jansson; Ann McDonald; Handan Wand; Jeffrey J Post Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Holly Tibble; Hsei Di Law; Matthew J Spittal; Rosemary Karmel; Rohan Borschmann; Katie Hail-Jares; Laura A Thomas; Stuart A Kinner Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Enny S Paixão; Oona M R Campbell; Laura C Rodrigues; Maria Glória Teixeira; Maria da Conceição N Costa; Elizabeth B Brickley; Katie Harron Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 3.240