Cited by 235Data Quality and ManagementMedical Coding and Health InformationElectronic Health Records Systems

Data linkage: a powerful research tool with potential problems

Open access
Bohensky, Megan A, Jolley, Damien, Sundararajan, Vijaya, Evans, Sue, Pilcher, David V, Scott, Ian, Brand, Caroline A·2010·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Policy makers, clinicians and researchers are demonstrating increasing interest in using data linked from multiple sources to support measurement of clinical performance and patient health outcomes. However, the utility of data linkage may be compromised by sub-optimal or incomplete linkage, leading to systematic bias. In this study, we synthesize the evidence identifying participant or population characteristics that can influence the validity and completeness of data linkage and may be associated with systematic bias in reported outcomes. METHODS: A narrative review, using structured search methods was undertaken. Key words "data linkage" and Mesh term "medical record linkage" were applied to Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL databases between 1991 and 2007. Abstract inclusion criteria were; the article attempted an empirical evaluation of methodological issues relating to data linkage and reported on patient characteristics, the study design included analysis of matched versus unmatched records, and the report was in English. Included articles were grouped thematically according to patient characteristics that were compared between matched and unmatched records. RESULTS: The search identified 1810 articles of which 33 (1.8%) met inclusion criteria. There was marked heterogeneity in study methods and factors investigated. Characteristics that were unevenly distributed among matched and unmatched records were; age (72% of studies), sex (50% of studies), race (64% of studies), geographical/hospital site (93% of studies), socio-economic status (82% of studies) and health status (72% of studies). CONCLUSION: A number of relevant patient or population factors may be associated with incomplete data linkage resulting in systematic bias in reported clinical outcomes. Readers should consider these factors in interpreting the reported results of data linkage studies.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1472-6963-10-346

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Young AF Dobson AJ Byles JE Health services research using linked records: who consents and what is the gain?[see comment] Aust N Z J Public Health 2001 25 5 417 420 11688619

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bohensky, M. A., Jolley, D., Sundararajan, V., Evans, S., Pilcher, D. V., Scott, I., & Brand, C. A.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (AU)
  • Princess Alexandra Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Bohensky, Megan A
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2010-12
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
346-346
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1975356361
Cited by
234
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Monash University
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, medical record linkage, systematic bias, patient characteristics, socioeconomic status, health status, clinical outcome measurement
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Health Services Research, Health Status, Hospitals, Humans, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Research Design, Sensitivity and Specificity, Databases, Bibliographic, Information Storage and Retrieval, Empirical Research, Clinical Audit

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