Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26292280›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Validity of Diagnostic Codes for Acute Stroke in Administrative Databases: A Systematic Review.

Natalie McCormick, Vidula Bhole, Diane Lacaille, J Antonio Avina-Zubieta

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 240 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
240citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

240 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Electronic health records research: easy evidence, harder oversight.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

180 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

4 authors.

Natalie McCormickFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Arthritis Research Canada, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
Vidula BholeArthritis Research Canada, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
Diane LacailleArthritis Research Canada, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada; Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Cardiovascular Committee of the CANRAD Network, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
J Antonio Avina-ZubietaArthritis Research Canada, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada; Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Cardiovascular Committee of the CANRAD Network, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo conduct a systematic review of studies reporting on the validity of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for identifying stroke in administrative data.

methodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched (inception to February 2015) for studies: (a) Using administrative data to identify stroke; or (b) Evaluating the validity of stroke codes in administrative data; and (c) Reporting validation statistics (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), or Kappa scores) for stroke, or data sufficient for their calculation. Additional articles were located by hand search (up to February 2015) of original papers. Studies solely evaluating codes for transient ischaemic attack were excluded. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers; article quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool.

resultsSeventy-seven studies published from 1976-2015 were included. The sensitivity of ICD-9 430-438/ICD-10 I60-I69 for any cerebrovascular disease was ≥ 82% in most [≥ 50%] studies, and specificity and NPV were both ≥ 95%. The PPV of these codes for any cerebrovascular disease was ≥ 81% in most studies, while the PPV specifically for acute stroke was ≤ 68%. In at least 50% of studies, PPVs were ≥ 93% for subarachnoid haemorrhage (ICD-9 430/ICD-10 I60), 89% for intracerebral haemorrhage (ICD-9 431/ICD-10 I61), and 82% for ischaemic stroke (ICD-9 434/ICD-10 I63 or ICD-9 434&436). For in-hospital deaths, sensitivity was 55%. For cerebrovascular disease or acute stroke as a cause-of-death on death certificates, sensitivity was ≤ 71% in most studies while PPV was ≥ 87%.

conclusionsWhile most cases of prevalent cerebrovascular disease can be detected using 430-438/I60-I69 collectively, acute stroke must be defined using more specific codes. Most in-hospital deaths and death certificates with stroke as a cause-of-death correspond to true stroke deaths. Linking vital statistics and hospitalization data may improve the ascertainment of fatal stroke.

Indexed as

Cerebral HemorrhageCerebrovascular DisordersClinical CodingDatabases, FactualDeath CertificatesHospitalizationHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesIschemic Attack, TransientStrokeSubarachnoid Hemorrhage

Identifiers

PMID26292280
PMCPMC4546158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.