4.7 Article

Accuracy of cause-of-death coding in Taiwan: types of miscoding and effects on mortality statistics

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 29, 期 2, 页码 336-343

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/29.2.336

关键词

cause of death; coding; ICD-9; death certificates; mortality; Taiwan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The objectives of this study were to assess the accuracy of cause-of-death coding, determine the extent to which coders follow the selection rules of coding set out in the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9), and the effects of miscoding on mortality statistics in Taiwan. Method A systematic sample of 5621 death certificates was reviewed. The underlying cause of death (UCD) selected by the reviewer for each death certificate was compared with that selected by the original coder. The UCD was selected according to ACME (Automated Classification of Medical Entities) Decision Tables. Results The overall agreement rates between the reviewer and coders according to the three-digit and two-digit categories of ICD-9 were 80.9% and 83.9%, respectively. Good agreement was found for malignant neoplasms (kappa = 0.94) and injuries and poisoning (kappa = 0.97), but there was poor agreement for nephrotic dis eases (kappa = 0.74), hypertension-related diseases (kappa = 0.74), and cerebral infarction (kappa = 0.77). Reasons for disagreements included disagreement in nomenclature (42.8%), inappropriate judgement of causal relationships (41.5%), and incorrect interpretation of Selection Rule 3 and Modification Rules (15.7%). Conclusion This study showed various levels of agreement for different diseases between the reviewer and the original coders in selection of the UCD. Owing to the 'compensatory effect of errors', the national mortality statistics were not affected significantly. The national administration should undertake routine internal studies to control the quality of UCD coding practices.

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

4.7
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