Approach to record linkage of primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink to other health-related patient data: overview and implications
Open accessAbstract
Record linkage is increasingly used to expand the information available for public health research. An understanding of record linkage methods and the relevant strengths and limitations is important for robust analysis and interpretation of linked data. Here, we describe the approach used by Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to link primary care data to other patient level datasets, and the potential implications of this approach for CPRD data analysis. General practice electronic health record software providers separately submit de-identified data to CPRD and patient identifiers to NHS Digital, excluding patients who have opted-out from contributing data. Data custodians for external datasets also send patient identifiers to NHS Digital. NHS Digital uses identifiers to link the datasets using an 8-stage deterministic methodology. CPRD subsequently receives a de-identified linked cohort file and provides researchers with anonymised linked data and metadata detailing the linkage process. This methodology has been used to generate routine primary care linked datasets, including data from Hospital Episode Statistics, Office for National Statistics and National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. 10.6 million (M) patients from 411 English general practices were included in record linkage in June 2018. 9.1M (86%) patients were of research quality, of which 8.0M (88%) had a valid NHS number and were eligible for linkage in the CPRD standard linked dataset release. Linking CPRD data to other sources improves the range and validity of research studies. This manuscript, together with metadata generated on match strength and linkage eligibility, can be used to inform study design and explore potential linkage-related selection and misclassification biases.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Use of HES data possibly introduced misclassification bias.
“Limitations of our approach include the use of HES data, which offered a rich source of clinical outcomes that were linked to the genetic data of UK Biobank participants but possibly also introduced misclassification bias [44].”
From Associations of genetically determined iron status across the phenome: A mendelian randomization study (2019) · cites this paper as [44]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 208
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [34]Setakis E, Puri S, Williams TJ, et al. Representiveness of subset of the general practice research database (GPRD) linked to other data sources. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2018; 736:19. https://insights.ovid.com/pharmacoepidemiology-drug-safety/pads/2010/08/001/736-representiveness-subset-general-practice/736/01445491. Accessed 26 June 2018.
- Authors
- Padmanabhan, S., Carty, L., Cameron, E., Ghosh, R. E., Williams, R., & Strongman, H.
- Affiliations
- Clinical Practice Research Datalink (GB)
- NHS Digital (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Padmanabhan, Shivani
- Venue
- European Journal of Epidemiology
- Published
- 2018-09-15
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 91-99
- ISSN
- 0393-2990 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7284
- PMC
- PMC6325980
- OpenAlex
- W2889907608
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 10
- FWCI
- 13.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- European Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
- LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Data Quality and Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- data linkage, Clinical Practice Research Datalink, primary care data, deterministic linkage, patient identifiers, NHS Digital, Hospital Episode Statistics, Office for National Statistics, selection bias, misclassification bias, NHS number
- MeSH terms
- Data Anonymization, Data Analysis, Data Collection, United Kingdom, Humans, Medical Record Linkage, Primary Health Care, State Medicine, Biomedical Research, Electronic Health Records, Datasets as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review