Internal deterministic record linkage using indirect identifiers for matching of same-patient hospital transfers and early readmissions after acute coronary syndrome in a nationwide hospital discharge database: A retrospective observational validation study
BMJ Open, ISSN: 2044-6055, Vol: 9, Issue: 12, Page: e033486
2019
- 6Citations
- 26Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations6
- Citation Indexes4
- Policy Citations2
- 2
- Captures26
- Readers26
- 26
Article Description
Objectives: To assess validity of record linkage using multiple indirect personal identifiers to identify same-patient hospitalisations and definition of episode of care (EC) due to acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: Using national hospital discharge data to identify all admissions due to ACS, we used six different linkage rules using indirect identifiers with increasing level of detail and compared validity against a pseudonymised unique identifier used as gold standard (GS). Contiguous hospitalisations within each matched group of hospitalizations occurring within 28 days of each other were considered one EC. We classified hospitalisations according to time between the first pair of hospitalisations as hospital transfer (HT: ≤1 day), early readmission (ER: 2-28 days) or recurrent cases (>28 days). Results: There were 146 671 hospitalisations (unlinked), 121 987 ACS 28-day EC (linked GS), with 18 398 HTs (≤1 day), and 6286 ERs (≤28 days). Linkage rules using demographic and residence code variables produced linkage rates with highest validity for rule using sex, date of birth and four-digit residence code with sensitivity of 98.4 (95% CI: 98.4 to 98.5); specificity of 97.8 (95% CI: 97.6 to 98.0) and Cohen's κ of 0.9 to detect ACS-EC, compared with GS linkage rule. Similarly, validity for HT and ER was high and of similar magnitude, with sensitivity ranging between 97.2% and 98.1%, and specificity between 98.8% and 99.9%, respectively. Conclusions: Our internal linkage validation study using indirect patient identifiers will allow calibration of incidence rates and performance indicators, accounting for the effect of HT and readmissions.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85077454261&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033486; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31892664; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033486; https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033486; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/12/e033486
BMJ
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know