Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22914826›Full record

SynthesisNeurology2012

Recommendations for optimal ICD codes to study neurologic conditions: a systematic review.

Christine St Germaine-Smith, Amy Metcalfe, Tamara Pringsheim, Jodie Irene Roberts, Cynthia A Beck, Brenda R Hemmelgarn, Jane McChesney, Hude Quan, Nathalie Jette

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

103 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Validity of International Classification of Diseases Codes for Identifying Neuro-Ophthalmic Disease in Large Data Sets: A Systematic Review.Journal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Identifying dementia cases with routinely collected health data: A systematic review.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Severe head injury and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis & frontotemporal degeneration · 2013
    Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Christine St Germaine-SmithDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Canada.
Amy Metcalfe
Tamara Pringsheim
Jodie Irene Roberts
Cynthia A Beck
Brenda R Hemmelgarn
Jane McChesney
Hude Quan
Nathalie Jette

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAdministrative health data are frequently used for large population-based studies. However, the validity of these data for identifying neurologic conditions is uncertain.

methodsThis article systematically reviews the literature to assess the validity of administrative data for identifying patients with neurologic conditions. Two reviewers independently assessed for eligibility all abstracts and full-text articles identified through a systematic search of Medline and Embase. Study data were abstracted on a standardized abstraction form to identify ICD code-based case definitions and corresponding sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs).

resultsThirty full-text articles met the eligibility criteria. These included 8 studies for Alzheimer disease/dementia (sensitivity: 8-86.5, specificity: 56.3-100, PPV: 60-97.9, NPV: 68.0-98.9), 2 for brain tumor (sensitivity: 54.0-100, specificity: 97.0-99.0, PPV: 91.0-98.0), 4 for epilepsy (sensitivity: 98.8, specificity: 69.6, PPV: 62.0-100, NPV: 89.5-99.1), 4 for motor neuron disease (sensitivity: 78.9-93.0, specificity: 99.0-99.9, PPV: 38.0-90.0, NPV: 99), 2 for multiple sclerosis (sensitivity: 85-92.4, specificity: 55.9-92.6, PPV: 74.5-92.7, NPV: 70.8-91.9), 4 for Parkinson disease/parkinsonism (sensitivity: 18.7-100, specificity: 0-99.9, PPV: 38.6-81.0, NPV: 46.0), 3 for spinal cord injury (sensitivity: 0.9-90.6, specificity: 31.9-100, PPV: 27.3-100), and 3 for traumatic brain injury (sensitivity: 45.9-78.0 specificity: 97.8, PPV: 23.7-98.0, NPV: 99.2). No studies met eligibility criteria for cerebral palsy, dystonia, Huntington disease, hydrocephalus, muscular dystrophy, spina bifida, or Tourette syndrome.

conclusionsTo ensure the accurate interpretation of population-based studies with use of administrative health data, the accuracy of case definitions for neurologic conditions needs to be taken into consideration.

Indexed as

HumansInternational Classification of DiseasesNervous System DiseasesSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID22914826
PMCPMC3430709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.