SynthesisJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2012
Systematic review of discharge coding accuracy.
Synthesis in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 303 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
303 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Frailty Screening Using the Risk Analysis Index: A User Guide.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic review of groin wound surgical site infection incidence after arterial intervention.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- In-hospital hyperglycemia but not diabetes mellitus alone is associated with increased in-hospital mortality in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP): a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies prior to COVID-19.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2022Pooled it
- Understanding variations in reported epidemiology of major lower extremity amputation in the UK: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Predictive value of indicators for identifying child maltreatment and intimate partner violence in coded electronic health records: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of disease in childhood · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Current Procedural Terminology Coding in Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgery: Promise or Premature?Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Article
- Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Clinical Coding in the Casemix System in a Teaching Hospital: Cross-Sectional Study.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Article
- Accuracy and Usability of Emergency Department Diagnostic Codes: A Multicentre Observational Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Revenue-sensitive evaluation of AI-assisted ICD-10-CM coding and human-AI collaboration under dual DRG payment systems.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Validation of Recorded Diagnoses of Acute Kidney Injury Among Surgical Patients in the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination Database.Journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Trend Analyses on Interventional Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation From 2016 to 2022: Insights From a Multicenter Hospital Database of Left Atrial Catheter Ablation Cases.Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
- Disparities in Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Respiratory Distress by Sex, Region, and Socioeconomic Status.ASAIO journal (American Society for Artificial Internal Organs : 1992) · 2026Article
- Attributes and Health Care Resource Utilization of Patients on Enzalutamide or Abiraterone for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Cancer in England.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Analysis of functional urological surgery trends 2013-2024 in England using the HES database.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Does metabolically healthy obesity increase the risk of knee and hand osteoarthritis? A population-based cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
243 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRoutinely collected data sets are increasingly used for research, financial reimbursement and health service planning. High quality data are necessary for reliable analysis. This study aims to assess the published accuracy of routinely collected data sets in Great Britain.
methodsSystematic searches of the EMBASE, PUBMED, OVID and Cochrane databases were performed from 1989 to present using defined search terms. Included studies were those that compared routinely collected data sets with case or operative note review and those that compared routinely collected data with clinical registries.
resultsThirty-two studies were included. Twenty-five studies compared routinely collected data with case or operation notes. Seven studies compared routinely collected data with clinical registries. The overall median accuracy (routinely collected data sets versus case notes) was 83.2% (IQR: 67.3-92.1%). The median diagnostic accuracy was 80.3% (IQR: 63.3-94.1%) with a median procedure accuracy of 84.2% (IQR: 68.7-88.7%). There was considerable variation in accuracy rates between studies (50.5-97.8%). Since the 2002 introduction of Payment by Results, accuracy has improved in some respects, for example primary diagnoses accuracy has improved from 73.8% (IQR: 59.3-92.1%) to 96.0% (IQR: 89.3-96.3), P= 0.020.
conclusionAccuracy rates are improving. Current levels of reported accuracy suggest that routinely collected data are sufficiently robust to support their use for research and managerial decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.