过敏性接触性皮炎的不精确编码:1999年至2022年芬兰北部的一项登记研究

IF 4.8 1区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY Contact Dermatitis Pub Date : 2024-12-30 DOI:10.1111/cod.14744
Jenni Kämäräinen, Touko Loukkola, Joanna Mikkola, Minna Sivonen, Jari Jokelainen, Eetu Kiviniemi, Laura Huilaja, Suvi-Päivikki Sinikumpu
{"title":"过敏性接触性皮炎的不精确编码:1999年至2022年芬兰北部的一项登记研究","authors":"Jenni Kämäräinen,&nbsp;Touko Loukkola,&nbsp;Joanna Mikkola,&nbsp;Minna Sivonen,&nbsp;Jari Jokelainen,&nbsp;Eetu Kiviniemi,&nbsp;Laura Huilaja,&nbsp;Suvi-Päivikki Sinikumpu","doi":"10.1111/cod.14744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Registry-based data are increasingly used in dermatological research. A recent epidemiological study has shown that the use of non-specific diagnostic codes is common among dermatologists.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To study closely the use of the diagnostic codes L23.8 (‘allergic contact dermatitis [ACD] for other agents’) and L23.9 (‘ACD with unspecified cause’) by using single-centre data.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patients/Materials/Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This retrospective study included all patients whose record contained at least one entry of either code, recorded at the Oulu University Hospital, Finland, between the Years 1999 and 2022.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The database search retrieved records of 472 patients with the L23.8 code, 264 patients with L23.9. Over the 20-year follow-up period, the use of L23.8 increased and that of L23.9 decreased. In most (85.1%) cases, the L23.8 code was used even though the more specified L23 code could have been chosen. In one-third of cases, L23.8 was used to cover ACD with multiple allergens that would otherwise be identified by their specific sub-codes. The L23.9 code was used most often prior to patch testing (69.1% cases).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This study revealed several imprecisions in the use of both codes. Our study highlights the importance of correct coding in clinical practice, as it emphasises the most common pitfalls.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"92 4","pages":"273-276"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.14744","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Imprecise Coding in Allergic Contact Dermatitis: A Register-Study From Northern Finland Between Years 1999 and 2022\",\"authors\":\"Jenni Kämäräinen,&nbsp;Touko Loukkola,&nbsp;Joanna Mikkola,&nbsp;Minna Sivonen,&nbsp;Jari Jokelainen,&nbsp;Eetu Kiviniemi,&nbsp;Laura Huilaja,&nbsp;Suvi-Päivikki Sinikumpu\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cod.14744\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Registry-based data are increasingly used in dermatological research. A recent epidemiological study has shown that the use of non-specific diagnostic codes is common among dermatologists.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>To study closely the use of the diagnostic codes L23.8 (‘allergic contact dermatitis [ACD] for other agents’) and L23.9 (‘ACD with unspecified cause’) by using single-centre data.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Patients/Materials/Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This retrospective study included all patients whose record contained at least one entry of either code, recorded at the Oulu University Hospital, Finland, between the Years 1999 and 2022.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The database search retrieved records of 472 patients with the L23.8 code, 264 patients with L23.9. Over the 20-year follow-up period, the use of L23.8 increased and that of L23.9 decreased. In most (85.1%) cases, the L23.8 code was used even though the more specified L23 code could have been chosen. In one-third of cases, L23.8 was used to cover ACD with multiple allergens that would otherwise be identified by their specific sub-codes. The L23.9 code was used most often prior to patch testing (69.1% cases).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study revealed several imprecisions in the use of both codes. Our study highlights the importance of correct coding in clinical practice, as it emphasises the most common pitfalls.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10527,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contact Dermatitis\",\"volume\":\"92 4\",\"pages\":\"273-276\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.14744\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contact Dermatitis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cod.14744\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contact Dermatitis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cod.14744","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:基于注册表的数据越来越多地用于皮肤病学研究。最近的一项流行病学研究表明,皮肤科医生普遍使用非特异性诊断代码。目的:通过单中心数据研究诊断代码L23.8(“其他药物引起的过敏性接触性皮炎”)和L23.9(“原因不明的ACD”)的使用情况。患者/材料/方法:本回顾性研究纳入了1999年至2022年间在芬兰奥卢大学医院记录的所有患者,其记录至少包含一个编码条目。结果:数据库检索到L23.8编码患者472例,L23.9编码患者264例。在20年的随访期间,L23.8的使用增加,L23.9的使用减少。在大多数(85.1%)情况下,即使可以选择更具体的L23代码,也会使用L23.8代码。在三分之一的病例中,L23.8用于覆盖具有多个过敏原的ACD,否则这些过敏原将通过其特定的子代码进行识别。L23.9代码在补丁测试之前最常被使用(69.1%)。结论:本研究揭示了两种代码使用中的一些不精确之处。我们的研究强调了正确编码在临床实践中的重要性,因为它强调了最常见的陷阱。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Imprecise Coding in Allergic Contact Dermatitis: A Register-Study From Northern Finland Between Years 1999 and 2022

Background

Registry-based data are increasingly used in dermatological research. A recent epidemiological study has shown that the use of non-specific diagnostic codes is common among dermatologists.

Objectives

To study closely the use of the diagnostic codes L23.8 (‘allergic contact dermatitis [ACD] for other agents’) and L23.9 (‘ACD with unspecified cause’) by using single-centre data.

Patients/Materials/Methods

This retrospective study included all patients whose record contained at least one entry of either code, recorded at the Oulu University Hospital, Finland, between the Years 1999 and 2022.

Results

The database search retrieved records of 472 patients with the L23.8 code, 264 patients with L23.9. Over the 20-year follow-up period, the use of L23.8 increased and that of L23.9 decreased. In most (85.1%) cases, the L23.8 code was used even though the more specified L23 code could have been chosen. In one-third of cases, L23.8 was used to cover ACD with multiple allergens that would otherwise be identified by their specific sub-codes. The L23.9 code was used most often prior to patch testing (69.1% cases).

Conclusions

This study revealed several imprecisions in the use of both codes. Our study highlights the importance of correct coding in clinical practice, as it emphasises the most common pitfalls.

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
Contact Dermatitis
Contact Dermatitis 医学-过敏
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
30.90%
发文量
227
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Contact Dermatitis is designed primarily as a journal for clinicians who are interested in various aspects of environmental dermatitis. This includes both allergic and irritant (toxic) types of contact dermatitis, occupational (industrial) dermatitis and consumers" dermatitis from such products as cosmetics and toiletries. The journal aims at promoting and maintaining communication among dermatologists, industrial physicians, allergists and clinical immunologists, as well as chemists and research workers involved in industry and the production of consumer goods. Papers are invited on clinical observations, diagnosis and methods of investigation of patients, therapeutic measures, organisation and legislation relating to the control of occupational and consumers".
期刊最新文献
The Usefulness of Scratch-Patch Testing in Imatinib-Induced DRESS Syndrome. A New Case of Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Topical Simvastatin Used for Treatment of Porokeratosis. Multiple Allergens Causing Sofa Dermatitis: A Case Report of Polysensitisation. Shiitake Dermatitis: First Report From Turkey. Two Cases of Facial Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Hexyl Resorcinol, a 'New' Resorcinol Derivative in Depigmenting Products.
×
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