Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27716355›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2016

Use of explicit ICD9-CM codes to identify adult severe sepsis: impacts on epidemiological estimates.

C Bouza, T Lopez-Cuadrado, J M Amate-Blanco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 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. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A simple measure to improve sepsis documentation and coding.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

C BouzaHealth-Care Technology Assessment Agency, Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, Spain. cbouza@isciii.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8089-9866
T Lopez-CuadradoNational Centre of Epidemiology, Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
J M Amate-BlancoHealth-Care Technology Assessment Agency, Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSevere sepsis is a challenge for healthcare systems, and epidemiological studies are essential to assess its burden and trends. However, there is no consensus on which coding strategy should be used to reliably identify severe sepsis. This study assesses the use of explicit codes to define severe sepsis and the impacts of this on the incidence and in-hospital mortality rates.

methodsWe examined episodes of severe sepsis in adults aged ≥18 years registered in the 2006-2011 national hospital discharge database, identified in an exclusive manner by two ICD-9-CM coding strategies: (1) those assigned explicit ICD-9-CM codes (995.92, 785.52); and (2) those assigned combined ICD-9-CM infection and organ dysfunction codes according to modified Martin criteria. The coding strategies were compared in terms of the populations they defined and their relative implementation. Trends were assessed using Joinpoint regression models and expressed as annual percentage change (APC).

resultsOf 222 846 episodes of severe sepsis identified, 138 517 (62.2 %) were assigned explicit codes and 84 329 (37.8 %) combination codes; incidence rates were 60.6 and 36.9 cases per 100 000 inhabitants, respectively. Despite similar demographic characteristics, cases identified by explicit codes involved fewer comorbidities, fewer registered pathogens, greater extent of organ dysfunction (two or more organs affected in 60 % versus 26 % of cases) and higher in-hospital mortality (54.5 % versus 29 %; risk ratio 1.86, 95 % CI 1.83, 1.88). Between 2006 and 2011, explicit codes were increasingly implemented. Standardised incidence rates in this cohort increased over time with an APC of 12.3 % (95 % CI 4.4, 20.8); in the combination code cohort, rates increased by 3.8 % (95 % CI 1.3, 6.3). A decreasing trend in mortality was observed in both cohorts though the APC was -8.1 % (95 % CI -10.4, -5.7) in the combination code cohort and -3.5 % (95 % CI -3.9, -3.2) in the explicit code cohort.

conclusionsOur findings suggest greater and increasing use of explicit codes for adult severe sepsis in Spain. This trend will have substantial impacts on epidemiological estimates, because these codes capture cases featuring greater organ dysfunction and in-hospital mortality.

Indexed as

AgedCohort StudiesEpidemiologic StudiesFemaleHumansIncidenceInternational Classification of DiseasesMaleMiddle AgedSepsisSpainEpidemiologyHealth services researchIncidenceOutcomeSevere sepsisTrends

Identifiers

PMID27716355
PMCPMC5047045

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.