医疗补助分析提取数据库中低出生体重和小胎龄诊断代码的验证。

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH American journal of epidemiology Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI:10.1093/aje/kwae472
Xi Wang, Yehua Wang, Yanmin Zhu, Diana Montoya-Williams, Joshua Brown, Amie J Goodin, Ellen Zimmerman, Almut G Winterstein
{"title":"医疗补助分析提取数据库中低出生体重和小胎龄诊断代码的验证。","authors":"Xi Wang, Yehua Wang, Yanmin Zhu, Diana Montoya-Williams, Joshua Brown, Amie J Goodin, Ellen Zimmerman, Almut G Winterstein","doi":"10.1093/aje/kwae472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The accuracy of low birth weight (LBW) and small for gestational age (SGA) in administrative healthcare records is crucial for perinatal studies but has few validity studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using 1999-2010 MAX linked to birth certificates (BC), we identified mother-infant dyads (≥30 days enrollment after delivery, with valid gestational age (GA) and birth weight (BW)). LBW and SGA were identified based on ICD-9-CM codes. Infants with BW <10% of the U.S. reference were flagged as SGA. For LBW group diagnoses, we imputed birthweight using median, mean BW from BCs, and ICD code boundaries of infants in the same LBW group. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values to assess performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 1,536,272 live births. All LBW groups had low SEs, high SPs, and NPVs, whereas PPVs varied. Among infants with SGA diagnoses based on GA/BW from the BC, SE of the SGA codes was 13.36%; SP 99.01%; PPV 67.37%. Combining imputation with LBW codes increased SE up to 22.09% (lower boundary) but decreased PPV to 41.53% (lower boundary).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ICD-9-CM codes from administrative healthcare records had low SE but high SP. Imputation based on GA and BW did not add much value to SGA identification.</p>","PeriodicalId":7472,"journal":{"name":"American journal of epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of Diagnosis Codes for Low Birth Weight and Small-for-Gestational Age in the Medicaid Analytic Extract Database.\",\"authors\":\"Xi Wang, Yehua Wang, Yanmin Zhu, Diana Montoya-Williams, Joshua Brown, Amie J Goodin, Ellen Zimmerman, Almut G Winterstein\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/aje/kwae472\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The accuracy of low birth weight (LBW) and small for gestational age (SGA) in administrative healthcare records is crucial for perinatal studies but has few validity studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using 1999-2010 MAX linked to birth certificates (BC), we identified mother-infant dyads (≥30 days enrollment after delivery, with valid gestational age (GA) and birth weight (BW)). LBW and SGA were identified based on ICD-9-CM codes. Infants with BW <10% of the U.S. reference were flagged as SGA. For LBW group diagnoses, we imputed birthweight using median, mean BW from BCs, and ICD code boundaries of infants in the same LBW group. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values to assess performance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 1,536,272 live births. All LBW groups had low SEs, high SPs, and NPVs, whereas PPVs varied. Among infants with SGA diagnoses based on GA/BW from the BC, SE of the SGA codes was 13.36%; SP 99.01%; PPV 67.37%. Combining imputation with LBW codes increased SE up to 22.09% (lower boundary) but decreased PPV to 41.53% (lower boundary).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ICD-9-CM codes from administrative healthcare records had low SE but high SP. Imputation based on GA and BW did not add much value to SGA identification.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae472\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae472","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:行政医疗记录中低出生体重(LBW)和小胎龄(SGA)的准确性对围产期研究至关重要,但有效性研究很少。方法:使用1999-2010 MAX与出生证明(BC)相关联,我们确定了母婴双体(分娩后≥30天登记,有效胎龄(GA)和出生体重(BW))。根据ICD-9-CM编码对LBW和SGA进行鉴定。结果:我们确定了1,536,272例活产婴儿。所有LBW组均具有低se、高SPs和npv,但ppv各不相同。根据BC的GA/BW诊断为SGA的婴儿中,SGA代码的SE为13.36%;SP 99.01%;PPV 67.37%。与LBW编码结合可使SE提高22.09%(下边界),PPV降低41.53%(下边界)。结论:来自行政医疗记录的ICD-9-CM编码SE低,SP高,基于GA和BW的代入对SGA鉴定没有太大价值。
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
Validation of Diagnosis Codes for Low Birth Weight and Small-for-Gestational Age in the Medicaid Analytic Extract Database.

Background: The accuracy of low birth weight (LBW) and small for gestational age (SGA) in administrative healthcare records is crucial for perinatal studies but has few validity studies.

Methods: Using 1999-2010 MAX linked to birth certificates (BC), we identified mother-infant dyads (≥30 days enrollment after delivery, with valid gestational age (GA) and birth weight (BW)). LBW and SGA were identified based on ICD-9-CM codes. Infants with BW <10% of the U.S. reference were flagged as SGA. For LBW group diagnoses, we imputed birthweight using median, mean BW from BCs, and ICD code boundaries of infants in the same LBW group. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values to assess performance.

Results: We identified 1,536,272 live births. All LBW groups had low SEs, high SPs, and NPVs, whereas PPVs varied. Among infants with SGA diagnoses based on GA/BW from the BC, SE of the SGA codes was 13.36%; SP 99.01%; PPV 67.37%. Combining imputation with LBW codes increased SE up to 22.09% (lower boundary) but decreased PPV to 41.53% (lower boundary).

Conclusions: ICD-9-CM codes from administrative healthcare records had low SE but high SP. Imputation based on GA and BW did not add much value to SGA identification.

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
American journal of epidemiology
American journal of epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
221
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Epidemiology is the oldest and one of the premier epidemiologic journals devoted to the publication of empirical research findings, opinion pieces, and methodological developments in the field of epidemiologic research. It is a peer-reviewed journal aimed at both fellow epidemiologists and those who use epidemiologic data, including public health workers and clinicians.
期刊最新文献
Effects of US state paid family leave policies on perinatal and postpartum health: A quasi-experimental analysis. Employment quality and suicide, drug poisoning, and alcohol-attributable mortality. Fast-food and convenience outlets near schools in California: a comparison of private and public schools. Unclean cooking fuel use and sleep problems among adults aged 65 years and older from six countries. Exacerbation of racial disparities in COVID-19 outcomes by Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias among nursing home residents.
×
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