PURPOSE: To compare probabilistic and deterministic algorithms for linking mothers and infants within electronic health records (EHRs) to support pregnancy outcomes research. METHODS: The study population was women enrolled in Group Health (Washington State, USA) delivering a liveborn infant from 2001 through 2008 (N = 33,093 deliveries) and infant members born in these years. We linked women to infants by surname, address, and dates of birth and delivery using deterministic and probabilistic algorithms. In a subset previously linked using "gold standard" identifiers (N = 14,449), we assessed each approach's sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). For deliveries with no "gold standard" linkage (N = 18,644), we compared the algorithms' linkage proportions. We repeated our analyses in an independent test set of deliveries from 2009 through 2013. We reviewed medical records to validate a sample of pairs apparently linked by one algorithm but not the other (N = 51 or 1.4% of discordant pairs). RESULTS: In the 2001-2008 "gold standard" population, the probabilistic algorithm's sensitivity was 84.1% (95% CI, 83.5-84.7) and PPV 99.3% (99.1-99.4), while the deterministic algorithm had sensitivity 74.5% (73.8-75.2) and PPV 95.7% (95.4-96.0). In the test set, the probabilistic algorithm again had higher sensitivity and PPV. For deliveries in 2001-2008 with no "gold standard" linkage, the probabilistic algorithm found matched infants for 58.3% and the deterministic algorithm, 52.8%. On medical record review, 100% of linked pairs appeared valid. CONCLUSIONS: A probabilistic algorithm improved linkage proportion and accuracy compared to a deterministic algorithm. Better linkage methods can increase the value of EHRs for pregnancy outcomes research.
PURPOSE: To compare probabilistic and deterministic algorithms for linking mothers and infants within electronic health records (EHRs) to support pregnancy outcomes research. METHODS: The study population was women enrolled in Group Health (Washington State, USA) delivering a liveborn infant from 2001 through 2008 (N = 33,093 deliveries) and infant members born in these years. We linked women to infants by surname, address, and dates of birth and delivery using deterministic and probabilistic algorithms. In a subset previously linked using "gold standard" identifiers (N = 14,449), we assessed each approach's sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV). For deliveries with no "gold standard" linkage (N = 18,644), we compared the algorithms' linkage proportions. We repeated our analyses in an independent test set of deliveries from 2009 through 2013. We reviewed medical records to validate a sample of pairs apparently linked by one algorithm but not the other (N = 51 or 1.4% of discordant pairs). RESULTS: In the 2001-2008 "gold standard" population, the probabilistic algorithm's sensitivity was 84.1% (95% CI, 83.5-84.7) and PPV 99.3% (99.1-99.4), while the deterministic algorithm had sensitivity 74.5% (73.8-75.2) and PPV 95.7% (95.4-96.0). In the test set, the probabilistic algorithm again had higher sensitivity and PPV. For deliveries in 2001-2008 with no "gold standard" linkage, the probabilistic algorithm found matched infants for 58.3% and the deterministic algorithm, 52.8%. On medical record review, 100% of linked pairs appeared valid. CONCLUSIONS: A probabilistic algorithm improved linkage proportion and accuracy compared to a deterministic algorithm. Better linkage methods can increase the value of EHRs for pregnancy outcomes research.
Authors: Lu Chen; Gaia Pocobelli; Onchee Yu; Susan M Shortreed; Sarah S Osmundson; Sharon Fuller; Paige D Wartko; David Mcculloch; Susan Warwick; Katherine M Newton; Sascha Dublin Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Paige D Wartko; Noel S Weiss; Daniel A Enquobahrie; K C Gary Chan; Alyssa Stephenson-Famy; Beth A Mueller; Sascha Dublin Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Margaret L Holland; Rose M Taylor; Eileen Condon; Gabrielle R Rinne; Sarah Bleicher; Margaret L Seldin; Lois S Sadler; Connie Li Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 2.238
Authors: Lu Chen; Susan M Shortreed; Thomas Easterling; T Craig Cheetham; Kristi Reynolds; Lyndsay A Avalos; Aruna Kamineni; Victoria Holt; Romain Neugebauer; Mary Akosile; Nerissa Nance; Zoe Bider-Canfield; Rod L Walker; Sylvia E Badon; Sascha Dublin Journal: Pregnancy Hypertens Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 2.899
Authors: Paige D Wartko; Noel S Weiss; Daniel A Enquobahrie; Kwun Chuen Gary Chan; Alyssa Stephenson-Famy; Beth A Mueller; Sascha Dublin Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Paige D Wartko; Noel S Weiss; Daniel A Enquobahrie; K C Gary Chan; Alyssa Stephenson-Famy; Beth A Mueller; Sascha Dublin Journal: J Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2021 Jul-Aug 01 Impact factor: 3.153
Authors: Amelia Jewell; Matthew Broadbent; Richard D Hayes; Ruth Gilbert; Robert Stewart; Johnny Downs Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 2.692