Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2024
Validating International Classification of Diseases Code 10th Revision algorithms for accurate identification of pulmonary embolism.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bikdeli Behnood, Khairani Candrika D, Bejjani Antoine, Lo Ying-Chih, Mahajan Shiwani, Caraballo César, Jimenez Jose Victor, Krishnathasan Darsiya, Zarghami Mehrdad, Rashedi Sina, Jimenez David, Barco Stefano, Secemsky Eric A, Klok Frederikus A, Hunsaker Andetta R, Aghayev Ayaz, Muriel Alfonso, Hussain Mohamad A, Appah-Sampong Abena, Lu Yuan, Lin Zhenqiu, Mojibian Hamid, Aneja Sanjay, Khera Rohan, Konstantinides Stavros, Goldhaber Samuel Z, Wang Liqin, Zhou Li, Monreal Manuel, Piazza Gregory, Krumholz Harlan M, PE-EHR+ Investigators
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Many research investigations for pulmonary embolism (PE) rely on the International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes for analyses of electronic databases. The validity of ICD-10 codes in identifying PE remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to validate an algorithm to efficiently identify pulmonary embolism using ICD-10 codes.
METHODS: Using a prespecified protocol, patients in the Mass General-Brigham hospitals (2016-2021) with ICD-10 principal discharge codes for PE, those with secondary codes for PE, and those without PE codes were identified (n = 578 from each group). Weighting was applied to represent each group proportionate to their true prevalence. The accuracy of ICD-10 codes for identifying PE was compared with adjudication by independent physicians. The F1 score, which incorporates sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV), was assessed. Subset validation was performed at Yale-New Haven Health System.
RESULTS: A total of 1712 patients were included (age: 60.6 years; 52.3% female). ICD-10 PE codes in the principal discharge position had sensitivity and PPV of 58.3% and 92.1%, respectively. Adding secondary discharge codes to the principal discharge codes improved the sensitivity to 83.2%, but the PPV was reduced to 79.1%. Using a combination of ICD-10 PE principal discharge codes or secondary codes plus imaging codes for PE led to sensitivity and PPV of 81.6% and 84.7%, respectively, and the highest F1 score (83.1%; P < .001 compared with other methods). Validation yielded largely similar results.
CONCLUSION: Although the principal discharge codes for PE show excellent PPV, they miss 40% of acute PEs. A combination of principal discharge codes and secondary codes plus PE imaging codes led to improved sensitivity without severe reduction in PPV.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to validate an algorithm to efficiently identify pulmonary embolism using ICD-10 codes.
METHODS: Using a prespecified protocol, patients in the Mass General-Brigham hospitals (2016-2021) with ICD-10 principal discharge codes for PE, those with secondary codes for PE, and those without PE codes were identified (n = 578 from each group). Weighting was applied to represent each group proportionate to their true prevalence. The accuracy of ICD-10 codes for identifying PE was compared with adjudication by independent physicians. The F1 score, which incorporates sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV), was assessed. Subset validation was performed at Yale-New Haven Health System.
RESULTS: A total of 1712 patients were included (age: 60.6 years; 52.3% female). ICD-10 PE codes in the principal discharge position had sensitivity and PPV of 58.3% and 92.1%, respectively. Adding secondary discharge codes to the principal discharge codes improved the sensitivity to 83.2%, but the PPV was reduced to 79.1%. Using a combination of ICD-10 PE principal discharge codes or secondary codes plus imaging codes for PE led to sensitivity and PPV of 81.6% and 84.7%, respectively, and the highest F1 score (83.1%; P < .001 compared with other methods). Validation yielded largely similar results.
CONCLUSION: Although the principal discharge codes for PE show excellent PPV, they miss 40% of acute PEs. A combination of principal discharge codes and secondary codes plus PE imaging codes led to improved sensitivity without severe reduction in PPV.