IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0221459.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing record linkage software programs and algorithms using real-world data

Author

Listed:
  • Alan F Karr
  • Matthew T Taylor
  • Suzanne L West
  • Soko Setoguchi
  • Tzuyung D Kou
  • Tobias Gerhard
  • Daniel B Horton

Abstract

Linkage of medical databases, including insurer claims and electronic health records (EHRs), is increasingly common. However, few studies have investigated the behavior and output of linkage software. To determine how linkage quality is affected by different algorithms, blocking variables, methods for string matching and weight determination, and decision rules, we compared the performance of 4 nonproprietary linkage software packages linking patient identifiers from noninteroperable inpatient and outpatient EHRs. We linked datasets using first and last name, gender, and date of birth (DOB). We evaluated DOB and year of birth (YOB) as blocking variables and used exact and inexact matching methods. We compared the weights assigned to record pairs and evaluated how matching weights corresponded to a gold standard, medical record number. Deduplicated datasets contained 69,523 inpatient and 176,154 outpatient records, respectively. Linkage runs blocking on DOB produced weights ranging in number from 8 for exact matching to 64,273 for inexact matching. Linkage runs blocking on YOB produced 8 to 916,806 weights. Exact matching matched record pairs with identical test characteristics (sensitivity 90.48%, specificity 99.78%) for the highest ranked group, but algorithms differentially prioritized certain variables. Inexact matching behaved more variably, leading to dramatic differences in sensitivity (range 0.04–93.36%) and positive predictive value (PPV) (range 86.67–97.35%), even for the most highly ranked record pairs. Blocking on DOB led to higher PPV of highly ranked record pairs. An ensemble approach based on averaging scaled matching weights led to modestly improved accuracy. In summary, we found few differences in the rankings of record pairs with the highest matching weights across 4 linkage packages. Performance was more consistent for exact string matching than for inexact string matching. Most methods and software packages performed similarly when comparing matching accuracy with the gold standard. In some settings, an ensemble matching approach may outperform individual linkage algorithms.

Suggested Citation

  • Alan F Karr & Matthew T Taylor & Suzanne L West & Soko Setoguchi & Tzuyung D Kou & Tobias Gerhard & Daniel B Horton, 2019. "Comparing record linkage software programs and algorithms using real-world data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-16, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0221459
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221459
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0221459
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0221459&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0221459?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jana Asher & Dean Resnick & Jennifer Brite & Robert Brackbill & James Cone, 2020. "An Introduction to Probabilistic Record Linkage with a Focus on Linkage Processing for WTC Registries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-16, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0221459. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.