ArticleAmerican journal of perinatology2015
The utility of ICD9-CM codes in identifying induction of labor.
Article in American journal of perinatology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Term Labor Induction and Cesarean Delivery Risk among Obese Women with and without Comorbidities.American journal of perinatology · 2022Article
- Medical indications for primary cesarean delivery in women with and without disabilities.The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2020Article
- Expectant Management of Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy and Future Cardiovascular Morbidity.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2020Article
- The contribution of maternal characteristics and cesarean delivery to an increasing trend of severe maternal morbidity.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundData evaluating the accuracy of ICD9-CM codes in identifying inductions are limited. Our objective was to examine the test characteristics of ICD9-CM coding for induction of labor and to identify differences between those captured by coding and those not.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of ICD9-CM codes in identifying charts of induced women at our institution from 2005 to 2009. Review of the medical record was the gold standard. Characteristics of the charts were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests and chi-square tests where appropriate.
resultsA total of 3,263 women were included, 708 with ICD9-CM coding for induction (screen positive). A total of 422 women were randomly sampled from those not coded as induction (screen negative). The sensitivity of ICD9-CM coding for induction was 51.4%, specificity 98.8%, positive predictive value 96.6%, negative predictive value 74.7%. False negative charts (25%) were more likely to be women induced for premature rupture of membranes (40% versus 8%, p < 0.001) or with oxytocin (51% versus 33%, p < 0.001) when compared with screen positive charts.
conclusionsIt is reassuring that 97% of charts coded for induction by ICD9-CM codes are, in fact, patients that were induced. With this degree of accuracy, we can be confident that charts coded as induction are unlikely to be miscoded.
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.