. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 May 1.

Published in final edited form as: Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017 Oct 10;103(5):899–905. doi: 10.1002/cpt.861

Table 3.

Difference in measuring 40 selected variables in EHR vs. EHR plus claims data

Training set
Year after cohort entry	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Year after cohort entry	Mean standardized difference^* (95% CI)
Top two deciles of predicted EHR-continuity	0.10 (0.09–0.11)	0.10 (0.09–0.11)	0.10 (0.09–0.11)	0.10 (0.09–0.11)	0.09 (0.07–0.10)	0.07 (0.06–0.09)	0.06 (0.05–0.08)
The remaining population	0.36 (0.35–0.37)	0.41 (0.40–0.42)	0.41 (0.40–0.43)	0.42 (0.40–0.43)	0.40 (0.39–0.41)	0.38 (0.36–0.40)	0.35 (0.33–0.37)
Validation set
Year after cohort entry	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Year after cohort entry	Mean standardized difference^* (95% CI)
Top two deciles of predicted EHR-continuity	0.10 (0.09–0.11)	0.11 (0.10–0.12)	0.11 (0.09–0.12)	0.11 (0.09–0.13)	0.09 (0.07–0.11)	0.08 (0.06–0.10)	0.07 (0.05–0.09)
The remaining population	0.40 (0.39–0.41)	0.48 (0.47–0.49)	0.49 (0.48–0.51)	0.49 (0.47–0.51)	0.47 (0.45–0.49)	0.46 (0.43–0.48)	0.41 (0.38–0.43)

CI=confidence interval, EHR= electronic health records.

a mean standardized difference (MSD) indicates acceptable discrepancy⁷; Estimates with 95 CIs included 0.1 were marked in boldface.