4.6 Article

ICD-9 tobacco use codes are effective identifiers of smoking status

Journal

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001557

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [T32GM080178]
  2. National Cancer Institute [R01CA141307]
  3. National Human Genome Research Institute [U01HG004798]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To evaluate the validity of, characterize the usage of, and propose potential research applications for International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) tobacco codes in clinical populations. Materials and methods Using data on cancer cases and cancer-free controls from Vanderbilt's biorepository, BioVU, we evaluated the utility of ICD-9 tobacco use codes to identify ever-smokers in general and high smoking prevalence (lung cancer) clinic populations. We assessed potential biases in documentation, and performed temporal analysis relating transitions between smoking codes to smoking cessation attempts. We also examined the suitability of these codes for use in genetic association analyses. Results ICD-9 tobacco use codes can identify smokers in a general clinic population (specificity of 1, sensitivity of 0.32), and there is little evidence of documentation bias. Frequency of code transitions between 'current' and 'former' tobacco use was significantly correlated with initial success at smoking cessation (p<0.0001). Finally, code-based smoking status assignment is a comparable covariate to text-based smoking status for genetic association studies. Discussion Our results support the use of ICD-9 tobacco use codes for identifying smokers in a clinical population. Furthermore, with some limitations, these codes are suitable for adjustment of smoking status in genetic studies utilizing electronic health records. Conclusions Researchers should not be deterred by the unavailability of full-text records to determine smoking status if they have ICD-9 code histories.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available