Cargando…

Accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision Codes for Identifying Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Administrative databases are increasingly used in research studies to capture clinical outcomes such as sepsis. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10), codes for identifying sepsis in adult and pediatric pati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Bonnie, Hadzi-Tosev, Milena, Liu, Yang, Lucier, Kayla J., Garg, Anchit, Li, Sophie, Heddle, Nancy M., Rochwerg, Bram, Ning, Shuoyan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9649267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36382338
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000788
_version_ 1784827762160173056
author Liu, Bonnie
Hadzi-Tosev, Milena
Liu, Yang
Lucier, Kayla J.
Garg, Anchit
Li, Sophie
Heddle, Nancy M.
Rochwerg, Bram
Ning, Shuoyan
author_facet Liu, Bonnie
Hadzi-Tosev, Milena
Liu, Yang
Lucier, Kayla J.
Garg, Anchit
Li, Sophie
Heddle, Nancy M.
Rochwerg, Bram
Ning, Shuoyan
author_sort Liu, Bonnie
collection PubMed
description Administrative databases are increasingly used in research studies to capture clinical outcomes such as sepsis. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10), codes for identifying sepsis in adult and pediatric patients. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos, and McMaster Superfilters from inception to September 7, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that validated the accuracy of sepsis ICD-10 codes against any reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION: Three authors, working in duplicate, independently extracted data. We conducted meta-analysis using a random effects model to pool sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). We evaluated individual study risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool and assessed certainty in pooled diagnostic effect measures using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirteen eligible studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and the meta-analysis. Eleven studies used manual chart review as the reference standard, and four studies used registry databases. Only one study evaluated pediatric patients exclusively. Compared with the reference standard of detailed chart review and/or registry databases, the pooled sensitivity for sepsis ICD-10 codes was 35% (95% CI, 22–48, low certainty), whereas the pooled specificity was 98% (95% CI: 98–99, low certainty). The PPV for ICD-10 codes ranged from 9.8% to 100% (median, 72.0%; interquartile range [IQR], 50.0–84.7%). NPV ranged from 54.7% to 99.1% (median, 95.9%; interquartile range, 85.5–98.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis is undercoded in administrative databases. Future research is needed to explore if greater consistency in ICD-10 code definitions and enhanced quality measures for ICD-10 coders can improve the coding accuracy of sepsis in large databases.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9649267
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96492672022-11-14 Accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision Codes for Identifying Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Liu, Bonnie Hadzi-Tosev, Milena Liu, Yang Lucier, Kayla J. Garg, Anchit Li, Sophie Heddle, Nancy M. Rochwerg, Bram Ning, Shuoyan Crit Care Explor Systematic Review Administrative databases are increasingly used in research studies to capture clinical outcomes such as sepsis. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines the accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10), codes for identifying sepsis in adult and pediatric patients. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, Epistemonikos, and McMaster Superfilters from inception to September 7, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that validated the accuracy of sepsis ICD-10 codes against any reference standard. DATA EXTRACTION: Three authors, working in duplicate, independently extracted data. We conducted meta-analysis using a random effects model to pool sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). We evaluated individual study risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool and assessed certainty in pooled diagnostic effect measures using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirteen eligible studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and the meta-analysis. Eleven studies used manual chart review as the reference standard, and four studies used registry databases. Only one study evaluated pediatric patients exclusively. Compared with the reference standard of detailed chart review and/or registry databases, the pooled sensitivity for sepsis ICD-10 codes was 35% (95% CI, 22–48, low certainty), whereas the pooled specificity was 98% (95% CI: 98–99, low certainty). The PPV for ICD-10 codes ranged from 9.8% to 100% (median, 72.0%; interquartile range [IQR], 50.0–84.7%). NPV ranged from 54.7% to 99.1% (median, 95.9%; interquartile range, 85.5–98.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis is undercoded in administrative databases. Future research is needed to explore if greater consistency in ICD-10 code definitions and enhanced quality measures for ICD-10 coders can improve the coding accuracy of sepsis in large databases. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022-11-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9649267/ /pubmed/36382338 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000788 Text en Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Liu, Bonnie
Hadzi-Tosev, Milena
Liu, Yang
Lucier, Kayla J.
Garg, Anchit
Li, Sophie
Heddle, Nancy M.
Rochwerg, Bram
Ning, Shuoyan
Accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision Codes for Identifying Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision Codes for Identifying Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision Codes for Identifying Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision Codes for Identifying Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision Codes for Identifying Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision Codes for Identifying Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort accuracy of international classification of diseases, 10th revision codes for identifying sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9649267/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36382338
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000788
work_keys_str_mv AT liubonnie accuracyofinternationalclassificationofdiseases10threvisioncodesforidentifyingsepsisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hadzitosevmilena accuracyofinternationalclassificationofdiseases10threvisioncodesforidentifyingsepsisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liuyang accuracyofinternationalclassificationofdiseases10threvisioncodesforidentifyingsepsisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lucierkaylaj accuracyofinternationalclassificationofdiseases10threvisioncodesforidentifyingsepsisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT garganchit accuracyofinternationalclassificationofdiseases10threvisioncodesforidentifyingsepsisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lisophie accuracyofinternationalclassificationofdiseases10threvisioncodesforidentifyingsepsisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT heddlenancym accuracyofinternationalclassificationofdiseases10threvisioncodesforidentifyingsepsisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT rochwergbram accuracyofinternationalclassificationofdiseases10threvisioncodesforidentifyingsepsisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ningshuoyan accuracyofinternationalclassificationofdiseases10threvisioncodesforidentifyingsepsisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis