验证台湾国民健康保险理赔数据库中有关吉兰-巴雷综合征的 ICD-10 诊断代码。

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-10-21 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CLEP.S485953
Cheng-Yang Hsieh, Po-Ting Chen, Shih-Chieh Shao, Swu-Jane Lin, Shu-Chen Liao, Edward Chia-Cheng Lai
{"title":"验证台湾国民健康保险理赔数据库中有关吉兰-巴雷综合征的 ICD-10 诊断代码。","authors":"Cheng-Yang Hsieh, Po-Ting Chen, Shih-Chieh Shao, Swu-Jane Lin, Shu-Chen Liao, Edward Chia-Cheng Lai","doi":"10.2147/CLEP.S485953","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To validate the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in Taiwan's insurance claims database.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified adult patients hospitalized at any Chang Gung Memorial Foundation branch hospital between January 1st, 2017, and December 31st, 2022, with ICD-10 code G61.0 in any of the five discharge diagnosis positions, indicating possible Guillain-Barré syndrome. We then validated the possible GBS diagnosis using data from electronic medical records of the identified patients, based on the diagnostic criteria established by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. We determined the positive predictive values (PPV) of various operational definitions, including the position (primary or other) where the code was recorded in the discharge diagnosis, nerve conduction study (NCS) claims, and / or specific GBS treatments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final validation cohort of 484 patients with ICD-10 code for GBS in the discharge diagnosis was found to include 368 true GBS patients. Identifying inpatients using only the ICD-10 code for GBS in any of the five positions for discharge diagnosis yielded a PPV of 76.0%. With more restrictive definitions (primary diagnosis only, or requiring additional claims for NCS and/or treatments), the PPV tended to increase, but with fewer true GBS patients identified. Using ICD-10 GBS code in the primary diagnosis plus NCS and treatment claims yielded the highest PPV (98.3%); however, 140 (38.0%) of the true GBS patients were missed using this definition. In contrast, using the ICD-10 GBS code in any position, plus claims for NCS, achieved a relatively good PPV (85.8%) with minimal loss of true GBS patients (13, ie, 3.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In Taiwan's NHI claims data, identifying true GBS patients using only the ICD-10 code yielded a PPV of 76.0%; however, adding claims for diagnostic procedure and GBS treatment increased the PPV to 98.3%.</p>","PeriodicalId":10362,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11497080/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validating ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes for Guillain-Barré Syndrome in Taiwan's National Health Insurance Claims Database.\",\"authors\":\"Cheng-Yang Hsieh, Po-Ting Chen, Shih-Chieh Shao, Swu-Jane Lin, Shu-Chen Liao, Edward Chia-Cheng Lai\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/CLEP.S485953\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To validate the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in Taiwan's insurance claims database.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified adult patients hospitalized at any Chang Gung Memorial Foundation branch hospital between January 1st, 2017, and December 31st, 2022, with ICD-10 code G61.0 in any of the five discharge diagnosis positions, indicating possible Guillain-Barré syndrome. We then validated the possible GBS diagnosis using data from electronic medical records of the identified patients, based on the diagnostic criteria established by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. We determined the positive predictive values (PPV) of various operational definitions, including the position (primary or other) where the code was recorded in the discharge diagnosis, nerve conduction study (NCS) claims, and / or specific GBS treatments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final validation cohort of 484 patients with ICD-10 code for GBS in the discharge diagnosis was found to include 368 true GBS patients. Identifying inpatients using only the ICD-10 code for GBS in any of the five positions for discharge diagnosis yielded a PPV of 76.0%. With more restrictive definitions (primary diagnosis only, or requiring additional claims for NCS and/or treatments), the PPV tended to increase, but with fewer true GBS patients identified. Using ICD-10 GBS code in the primary diagnosis plus NCS and treatment claims yielded the highest PPV (98.3%); however, 140 (38.0%) of the true GBS patients were missed using this definition. In contrast, using the ICD-10 GBS code in any position, plus claims for NCS, achieved a relatively good PPV (85.8%) with minimal loss of true GBS patients (13, ie, 3.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In Taiwan's NHI claims data, identifying true GBS patients using only the ICD-10 code yielded a PPV of 76.0%; however, adding claims for diagnostic procedure and GBS treatment increased the PPV to 98.3%.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Epidemiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11497080/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S485953\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S485953","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:验证台湾保险理赔数据库中吉兰-巴雷综合征(GBS)的国际疾病分类第十版(ICD-10)代码:我们确定了 2017 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 12 月 31 日期间在任何一家长庚纪念基金会分院住院的成人患者,这些患者在五个出院诊断位置中的任何一个位置都有 ICD-10 代码 G61.0,表示可能患有格林-巴利综合征。然后,我们根据美国国立神经疾病和中风研究所制定的诊断标准,利用已确定患者的电子病历数据验证了可能的吉兰-巴雷综合征诊断。我们确定了各种操作定义的阳性预测值(PPV),包括出院诊断中记录代码的位置(主要或其他)、神经传导研究(NCS)索赔以及/或特定的 GBS 治疗方法:在出院诊断中带有 GBS ICD-10 编码的 484 名患者中,最终验证队列包括 368 名真正的 GBS 患者。仅使用出院诊断中五个位置中任何一个位置的 ICD-10 编码识别住院患者,PPV 为 76.0%。随着定义的限制性增加(仅限于主要诊断,或需要额外的 NCS 和/或治疗索赔),PPV 有增加的趋势,但真正的 GBS 患者却减少了。在主要诊断加上 NCS 和治疗索赔中使用 ICD-10 GBS 代码的 PPV 值最高(98.3%);但是,使用该定义遗漏了 140 例(38.0%)真正的 GBS 患者。相比之下,在任何位置使用 ICD-10 GBS 代码,再加上 NCS 索赔,则可获得相对较好的 PPV(85.8%),而真正的 GBS 患者的损失却很小(13 例,即 3.5%):结论:在台湾的国民健康保险理赔数据中,仅使用 ICD-10 编码识别真正的 GBS 患者的 PPV 为 76.0%;但如果加上诊断程序和 GBS 治疗的理赔,PPV 则可提高到 98.3%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Validating ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes for Guillain-Barré Syndrome in Taiwan's National Health Insurance Claims Database.

Purpose: To validate the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in Taiwan's insurance claims database.

Methods: We identified adult patients hospitalized at any Chang Gung Memorial Foundation branch hospital between January 1st, 2017, and December 31st, 2022, with ICD-10 code G61.0 in any of the five discharge diagnosis positions, indicating possible Guillain-Barré syndrome. We then validated the possible GBS diagnosis using data from electronic medical records of the identified patients, based on the diagnostic criteria established by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. We determined the positive predictive values (PPV) of various operational definitions, including the position (primary or other) where the code was recorded in the discharge diagnosis, nerve conduction study (NCS) claims, and / or specific GBS treatments.

Results: The final validation cohort of 484 patients with ICD-10 code for GBS in the discharge diagnosis was found to include 368 true GBS patients. Identifying inpatients using only the ICD-10 code for GBS in any of the five positions for discharge diagnosis yielded a PPV of 76.0%. With more restrictive definitions (primary diagnosis only, or requiring additional claims for NCS and/or treatments), the PPV tended to increase, but with fewer true GBS patients identified. Using ICD-10 GBS code in the primary diagnosis plus NCS and treatment claims yielded the highest PPV (98.3%); however, 140 (38.0%) of the true GBS patients were missed using this definition. In contrast, using the ICD-10 GBS code in any position, plus claims for NCS, achieved a relatively good PPV (85.8%) with minimal loss of true GBS patients (13, ie, 3.5%).

Conclusion: In Taiwan's NHI claims data, identifying true GBS patients using only the ICD-10 code yielded a PPV of 76.0%; however, adding claims for diagnostic procedure and GBS treatment increased the PPV to 98.3%.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Epidemiology
Clinical Epidemiology Medicine-Epidemiology
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.10%
发文量
169
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Epidemiology is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal. Clinical Epidemiology focuses on the application of epidemiological principles and questions relating to patients and clinical care in terms of prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Clinical Epidemiology welcomes papers covering these topics in form of original research and systematic reviews. Clinical Epidemiology has a special interest in international electronic medical patient records and other routine health care data, especially as applied to safety of medical interventions, clinical utility of diagnostic procedures, understanding short- and long-term clinical course of diseases, clinical epidemiological and biostatistical methods, and systematic reviews. When considering submission of a paper utilizing publicly-available data, authors should ensure that such studies add significantly to the body of knowledge and that they use appropriate validated methods for identifying health outcomes. The journal has launched special series describing existing data sources for clinical epidemiology, international health care systems and validation studies of algorithms based on databases and registries.
期刊最新文献
Validity of a Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Diagnosis in Adult Patients in the Danish National Patient Register. Assessing the Role of Serum Prealbumin in Prognostic Studies of Stroke: Reflections on Existing Research Methods [Letter]. Validating ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes for Guillain-Barré Syndrome in Taiwan's National Health Insurance Claims Database. Harmonized Data Quality Indicators Maintain Data Quality in Long-Term Safety Studies Using Multiple Sclerosis Registries/Data Sources: Experience from the CLARION Study. Incidence of Graves' Disease with Validation and Completeness of the Diagnosis for Registry Extracts in the Danish National Patient Register.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1