4.3 Article

Validity of Diagnostic Algorithms for Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Japanese Hospital Claims Data

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19137933

Keywords

validity; inflammatory bowel disease; claims database; diagnostic algorithm

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasing in Japan and further research is needed. A study developed algorithms using a combination of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes and prescription drugs to accurately identify IBD in claims databases.
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) diagnoses are increasing in Japan. Some patients have symptoms that are difficult to control, and further research on IBD is needed. Claims databases, which have a large sample size, can be useful for IBD research. However, it is unclear whether the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes alone can correctly identify IBD. We aimed to develop algorithms to identify IBD in claims databases. We used claims data from the Department of Gastroenterology, Tohoku University Hospital from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020. We developed 11 algorithms by combining the ICD-10 code, prescription drug, and workup information. We had access to the database which contains all the information for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis patients who visited our department, and we used it as the gold standard. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value for each algorithm. We enrolled 19,384 patients, and among them, 1012 IBD patients were identified in the gold standard database. Among 11 algorithms, Algorithm 4 (ICD-10 code and >= 1 prescription drugs) showed a strong performance (PPV, 94.8%; sensitivity, 75.6%). The combination of an ICD-10 code and prescription drugs may be useful for identifying IBD among claims data.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available