Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28118380›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2017

Asphyxia in the Newborn: Evaluating the Accuracy of ICD Coding, Clinical Diagnosis and Reimbursement: Observational Study at a Swiss Tertiary Care Center on Routinely Collected Health Data from 2012-2015.

Olga Endrich, Carole Rimle, Marcel Zwahlen, Karen Triep, Luigi Raio, Mathias Nelle

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Olga EndrichMedical Directorate, Inselspital, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0839-9821
Carole RimleStudent at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Marcel ZwahlenInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Karen TriepMedical Directorate, Inselspital, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Luigi RaioDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Mathias NelleNeonatology Division, Inselspital, University Hospital of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ICD-10 categories of the diagnosis "perinatal asphyxia" are defined by clinical signs and a 1-minute Apgar score value. However, the modern conception is more complex and considers metabolic values related to the clinical state. A lack of consistency between the former clinical and the latter encoded diagnosis poses questions over the validity of the data. Our aim was to establish a refined classification which is able to distinctly separate cases according to clinical criteria and financial resource consumption. The hypothesis of the study is that outdated ICD-10 definitions result in differences between the encoded diagnosis asphyxia and the medical diagnosis referring to the clinical context.

methodsRoutinely collected health data (encoding and financial data) of the University Hospital of Bern were used. The study population was chosen by selected ICD codes, the encoded and the clinical diagnosis were analyzed and each case was reevaluated. The new method categorizes the diagnoses of perinatal asphyxia into the following groups: mild, moderate and severe asphyxia, metabolic acidosis and normal clinical findings. The differences of total costs per case were determined by using one-way analysis of variance.

resultsThe study population included 622 cases (P20 "intrauterine hypoxia" 399, P21 "birth asphyxia" 233). By applying the new method, the diagnosis asphyxia could be ruled out with a high probability in 47% of cases and the variance of case related costs (one-way ANOVA: F (5, 616) = 55.84, p < 0.001, multiple R-squared = 0.312, p < 0.001) could be best explained. The classification of the severity of asphyxia could clearly be linked to the complexity of cases.

conclusionThe refined coding method provides clearly defined diagnoses groups and has the strongest effect on the distribution of costs. It improves the diagnosis accuracy of perinatal asphyxia concerning clinical practice, research and reimbursement.

Indexed as

International Classification of DiseasesReimbursement MechanismsAcidosisApgar ScoreAsphyxia NeonatorumCost ControlData CollectionDiagnosis, DifferentialDiagnostic ErrorsFemaleFetal HypoxiaHealth Care CostsHospitals, UniversityHumansIncidenceInfant, Newborn

Identifiers

PMID28118380
PMCPMC5261744

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.