4.6 Article

ICD-10 hospital discharge diagnosis codes were sensitive for identifying pulmonary embolism but not deep vein thrombosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 63, 期 7, 页码 790-797

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.09.002

关键词

Pulmonary embolism; Venous thrombosis; Sensitivity; Medical record systems, computerized; International classification of diseases; Hospitals

资金

  1. French Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  2. Grenoble University Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To estimate the sensitivity of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth revision (ICD-10) hospital discharge diagnosis codes for identifying deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Study Design and Setting: We compared predefined ICD-10 discharge diagnosis codes with the diagnoses that were prospectively recorded for 1,375 patients with suspected DVT or PE who were enrolled at 25 hospitals in France. Sensitivity was calculated as the percentage of patients identified by predefined ICD-10 codes among positive cases of acute symptomatic DVT or PE confirmed by objective testing. Results: The sensitivity of ICD-10 codes was 58.0% (159 of 274; 95% Cl: 51.9, 64.1) for isolated DVT and 88.9% (297 of 334; 95% CI: 85.6, 92.2) for PE. Depending on the hospital, the median values for sensitivity were 57.7% for DVT (interquartile range, IQR, 48.6-66.7; intracluster correlation coefficient, 0.02; P = 0.31) and 88.9% for PE (IQR, 83.3-96.3; intracluster correlation coefficient, 0.11; P = 0.03). The sensitivity of ICD-10 codes was lower for surgical patients and for patients who developed PE or DVT while they were hospitalized. Conclusion: ICD-10 discharge diagnosis codes yield satisfactory sensitivity for identifying objectively confirmed PE. A substantial proportion of DVT cases are missed when using hospital discharge data for complication screening or research purposes. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据