4.1 Article

Predictive value of ICD-9-CM codes used in vaccine safety research

Journal

METHODS OF INFORMATION IN MEDICINE
Volume 47, Issue 4, Pages 328-335

Publisher

SCHATTAUER GMBH-VERLAG MEDIZIN NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN
DOI: 10.3414/ME0500

Keywords

ICD-9-CM codes; positive predictive values; vaccine safety; bias; power reductions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To assess how well selected ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes predict adverse events; to model bias and power loss when vaccine safety analyses rely on unverified codes. Methods: We extracted chart verification data for ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes from six Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) publications and modeled biases and power losses using positive predictive value (PPV) estimates and ranges of code sensitivity. Results: Positive predictive values were high for type 1 diabetes (80%) in children, relative to WHO criteria, and intussusception (81%) in young children, relative to a standard published case definition. PPVs were moderate (65%) for inpatient and emergency department childhood seizures and low (21%) for outpatient childhood seizures, both relative to physician investigator judgment. Codes for incident central nervous system demyelinating disease in adults had high PPV for inpatient codes (80%) and low PPV for outpatient codes (42%) relative to physicians' diagnoses. Modeled biases were modest, but large increases in frequencies of adverse events are required to achieve adequate power if unverified ICD-9-CM codes are used, especially when vaccine associations are weak. Conclusions: ICD-9-CM codes for type 1 diabetes in children, intussusception in young children, childhood seizures in inpatient and emergency care settings, and inpatient demyelinating disease in adults were sufficiently predictive for vaccine safety analyses to rely on unverified diagnosis codes. Adverse event misclassification should be accounted for in statistical power calculations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available