PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
The objective of this systematic review was to examine how the record linkage process is reported in multimorbidity research.
A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Web of Science and Embase using predefined search terms, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Published studies from 2010 to 2020 using linked routinely collected data for multimorbidity research were included. Information was extracted on how the linkage process was reported, which conditions were studied together, which data sources were used, as well as challenges encountered during the linkage process or with the linked dataset.
Twenty studies were included. Fourteen studies received the linked dataset from a trusted third party. Eight studies reported variables used for the data linkage, while only two studies reported conducting prelinkage checks. The quality of the linkage was only reported by three studies, where two reported linkage rate and one raw linkage figures. Only one study checked for bias by comparing patient characteristics of linked and non-linked records.
The linkage process was poorly reported in multimorbidity research, even though this might introduce bias and potentially lead to inaccurate inferences drawn from the results. There is therefore a need for increased awareness of linkage bias and transparency of the linkage processes, which could be achieved through better adherence to reporting guidelines.
CRD42021243188.
A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Web of Science and Embase using predefined search terms, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Published studies from 2010 to 2020 using linked routinely collected data for multimorbidity research were included. Information was extracted on how the linkage process was reported, which conditions were studied together, which data sources were used, as well as challenges encountered during the linkage process or with the linked dataset.
Twenty studies were included. Fourteen studies received the linked dataset from a trusted third party. Eight studies reported variables used for the data linkage, while only two studies reported conducting prelinkage checks. The quality of the linkage was only reported by three studies, where two reported linkage rate and one raw linkage figures. Only one study checked for bias by comparing patient characteristics of linked and non-linked records.
The linkage process was poorly reported in multimorbidity research, even though this might introduce bias and potentially lead to inaccurate inferences drawn from the results. There is therefore a need for increased awareness of linkage bias and transparency of the linkage processes, which could be achieved through better adherence to reporting guidelines.
CRD42021243188.
摘要：
目的：本系统综述的目的是研究多发病率研究中记录链接过程的报道。
方法：在Medline进行了系统搜索，WebofScience和Embase使用预定义的搜索词，以及纳入和排除标准。纳入了2010年至2020年发表的研究，使用相关的常规收集数据进行多发病率研究。提取了有关如何报告链接过程的信息，一起研究了哪些条件，使用了哪些数据源，以及在链接过程中或与链接数据集的过程中遇到的挑战。
结果：纳入20项研究。14项研究收到了来自可信第三方的链接数据集。八项研究报告了用于数据链接的变量，而只有两项研究报告进行了链接前检查。链接的质量仅由三项研究报告，其中两个报告了联动率，一个原始联动数据。只有一项研究通过比较链接和非链接记录的患者特征来检查偏倚。
结论：在多浊度研究中，链接过程的报道很少，即使这可能会引入偏差，并可能导致从结果中得出的不准确推论。因此,需要提高对联系偏差的认识,提高联系进程的透明度,这可以通过更好地遵守报告准则来实现。
■CRD42021243188。
方法：在Medline进行了系统搜索，WebofScience和Embase使用预定义的搜索词，以及纳入和排除标准。纳入了2010年至2020年发表的研究，使用相关的常规收集数据进行多发病率研究。提取了有关如何报告链接过程的信息，一起研究了哪些条件，使用了哪些数据源，以及在链接过程中或与链接数据集的过程中遇到的挑战。
结果：纳入20项研究。14项研究收到了来自可信第三方的链接数据集。八项研究报告了用于数据链接的变量，而只有两项研究报告进行了链接前检查。链接的质量仅由三项研究报告，其中两个报告了联动率，一个原始联动数据。只有一项研究通过比较链接和非链接记录的患者特征来检查偏倚。
结论：在多浊度研究中，链接过程的报道很少，即使这可能会引入偏差，并可能导致从结果中得出的不准确推论。因此,需要提高对联系偏差的认识,提高联系进程的透明度,这可以通过更好地遵守报告准则来实现。
■CRD42021243188。
