ArticleBurns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries2017
The accuracy of burn diagnosis codes in health administrative data: A validation study.
Article in Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries, 2017. 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.
- Primary Care Attachment and Long-Term Mortality in Burn Survivors: A Population-Based Cohort Study.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026Article
- Adherence to Burn Center Referral Criteria for Pediatric Burns.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Trends in the epidemiology of major burn injury among hospitalized patients: A population-based analysis.The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2017Article
- Provider Adherence to Syphilis Testing Recommendations for Women Delivering a Stillbirth.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2017Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth administrative databases may provide rich sources of data for the study of outcomes following burn. We aimed to determine the accuracy of International Classification of Diseases diagnoses codes for burn in a population-based administrative database.
methodsData from a regional burn center's clinical registry of patients admitted between 2006-2013 were linked to administrative databases. Burn total body surface area (TBSA), depth, mechanism, and inhalation injury were compared between the registry and administrative records. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were determined, and coding agreement was assessed with the kappa statistic.
results1215 burn center patients were linked to administrative records. TBSA codes were highly sensitive and specific for ≥10 and ≥20% TBSA (89/93% sensitive and 95/97% specific), with excellent agreement (κ, 0.85/κ, 0.88). Codes were weakly sensitive (68%) in identifying ≥10% TBSA full-thickness burn, though highly specific (86%) with moderate agreement (κ, 0.46). Codes for inhalation injury had limited sensitivity (43%) but high specificity (99%) with moderate agreement (κ, 0.54). Burn mechanism had excellent coding agreement (κ, 0.84).
conclusionsAdministrative data diagnosis codes accurately identify burn by burn size and mechanism, while identification of inhalation injury or full-thickness burns is less sensitive but highly specific.
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.