Simplifying record linkage: Software and strategy
References (20)
- et al.
Reliability of computerized versus manual searches in a study of the health of Eldorado uranium workers
Comput. Biol. Med.
(1983) - et al.
The art and science of record linkage: methods that work with few identifiers
Comput. Biol. Med.
(1986) - et al.
The California automated mortality linkage system (CAMLIS)
Am. J. publ. Hlth
(1984) - et al.
An evaluation of the security administration master beneficiary record file and the national death index in the ascertainment of vital status
Am. J. publ. Hlth
(1983) Methodologic issues in linkage of multiple data bases
- et al.
Large system implementation in SAS: the resource management system using SAS, SAS/FSP, SAS/GRAPH and the Merrill database
- et al.
Software productivity as a strategic variable
Interfaces
(1985) Record linkage: present status and methodology
J. clin. Comput.
(1984)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.
Cited by (31)
Use of graph theory measures to identify errors in record linkage
2014, Computer Methods and Programs in BiomedicineCitation Excerpt :One organisation estimated the false positive error rate of their linkage, after extensive manual review, at 0.3 per cent [10]. There are two standard approaches to improving overall linkage quality [11]. The first is to focus on the parameters and settings used within the linkage process itself.
Unambiguous identification of hospital patients: Case study at the university departments of the General Hospital, Vienna
2000, International Journal of Medical InformaticsA comparison of administrative versus clinical data: coronary artery bypass surgery as an example
1994, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyFurther evidence concerning the use of a clinical comorbidity index with ICD-9-CM administrative data
1993, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyThe BOYS algorithm for determining optimum matching rules
1993, Computational Statistics and Data AnalysisComparing clinical information with claims data: Some similarities and differences
1991, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Copyright © 1987 Published by Elsevier Ltd.