Cargando…

Evaluating bias due to data linkage error in electronic healthcare records

BACKGROUND: Linkage of electronic healthcare records is becoming increasingly important for research purposes. However, linkage error due to mis-recorded or missing identifiers can lead to biased results. We evaluated the impact of linkage error on estimated infection rates using two different metho...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harron, Katie, Wade, Angie, Gilbert, Ruth, Muller-Pebody, Berit, Goldstein, Harvey
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015706/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24597489
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-36
_version_ 1782315383026352128
author Harron, Katie
Wade, Angie
Gilbert, Ruth
Muller-Pebody, Berit
Goldstein, Harvey
author_facet Harron, Katie
Wade, Angie
Gilbert, Ruth
Muller-Pebody, Berit
Goldstein, Harvey
author_sort Harron, Katie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Linkage of electronic healthcare records is becoming increasingly important for research purposes. However, linkage error due to mis-recorded or missing identifiers can lead to biased results. We evaluated the impact of linkage error on estimated infection rates using two different methods for classifying links: highest-weight (HW) classification using probabilistic match weights and prior-informed imputation (PII) using match probabilities. METHODS: A gold-standard dataset was created through deterministic linkage of unique identifiers in admission data from two hospitals and infection data recorded at the hospital laboratories (original data). Unique identifiers were then removed and data were re-linked by date of birth, sex and Soundex using two classification methods: i) HW classification - accepting the candidate record with the highest weight exceeding a threshold and ii) PII–imputing values from a match probability distribution. To evaluate methods for linking data with different error rates, non-random error and different match rates, we generated simulation data. Each set of simulated files was linked using both classification methods. Infection rates in the linked data were compared with those in the gold-standard data. RESULTS: In the original gold-standard data, 1496/20924 admissions linked to an infection. In the linked original data, PII provided least biased results: 1481 and 1457 infections (upper/lower thresholds) compared with 1316 and 1287 (HW upper/lower thresholds). In the simulated data, substantial bias (up to 112%) was introduced when linkage error varied by hospital. Bias was also greater when the match rate was low or the identifier error rate was high and in these cases, PII performed better than HW classification at reducing bias due to false-matches. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of evaluating the potential impact of linkage error on results. PII can help incorporate linkage uncertainty into analysis and reduce bias due to linkage error, without requiring identifiers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4015706
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40157062014-05-23 Evaluating bias due to data linkage error in electronic healthcare records Harron, Katie Wade, Angie Gilbert, Ruth Muller-Pebody, Berit Goldstein, Harvey BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Linkage of electronic healthcare records is becoming increasingly important for research purposes. However, linkage error due to mis-recorded or missing identifiers can lead to biased results. We evaluated the impact of linkage error on estimated infection rates using two different methods for classifying links: highest-weight (HW) classification using probabilistic match weights and prior-informed imputation (PII) using match probabilities. METHODS: A gold-standard dataset was created through deterministic linkage of unique identifiers in admission data from two hospitals and infection data recorded at the hospital laboratories (original data). Unique identifiers were then removed and data were re-linked by date of birth, sex and Soundex using two classification methods: i) HW classification - accepting the candidate record with the highest weight exceeding a threshold and ii) PII–imputing values from a match probability distribution. To evaluate methods for linking data with different error rates, non-random error and different match rates, we generated simulation data. Each set of simulated files was linked using both classification methods. Infection rates in the linked data were compared with those in the gold-standard data. RESULTS: In the original gold-standard data, 1496/20924 admissions linked to an infection. In the linked original data, PII provided least biased results: 1481 and 1457 infections (upper/lower thresholds) compared with 1316 and 1287 (HW upper/lower thresholds). In the simulated data, substantial bias (up to 112%) was introduced when linkage error varied by hospital. Bias was also greater when the match rate was low or the identifier error rate was high and in these cases, PII performed better than HW classification at reducing bias due to false-matches. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of evaluating the potential impact of linkage error on results. PII can help incorporate linkage uncertainty into analysis and reduce bias due to linkage error, without requiring identifiers. BioMed Central 2014-03-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4015706/ /pubmed/24597489 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-36 Text en Copyright © 2014 Harron et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Harron, Katie
Wade, Angie
Gilbert, Ruth
Muller-Pebody, Berit
Goldstein, Harvey
Evaluating bias due to data linkage error in electronic healthcare records
title Evaluating bias due to data linkage error in electronic healthcare records
title_full Evaluating bias due to data linkage error in electronic healthcare records
title_fullStr Evaluating bias due to data linkage error in electronic healthcare records
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating bias due to data linkage error in electronic healthcare records
title_short Evaluating bias due to data linkage error in electronic healthcare records
title_sort evaluating bias due to data linkage error in electronic healthcare records
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015706/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24597489
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-36
work_keys_str_mv AT harronkatie evaluatingbiasduetodatalinkageerrorinelectronichealthcarerecords
AT wadeangie evaluatingbiasduetodatalinkageerrorinelectronichealthcarerecords
AT gilbertruth evaluatingbiasduetodatalinkageerrorinelectronichealthcarerecords
AT mullerpebodyberit evaluatingbiasduetodatalinkageerrorinelectronichealthcarerecords
AT goldsteinharvey evaluatingbiasduetodatalinkageerrorinelectronichealthcarerecords