Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29662679›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of kidney health and disease2018

Validation of Living Donor Nephrectomy Codes.

Ngan N Lam, Krista L Lentine, Scott Klarenbach, Manish M Sood, Paul J Kuwornu, Kyla L Naylor, Gregory A Knoll, S Joseph Kim, Ann Young, Amit X Garg

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of kidney health and disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Follow-up Care of Living Kidney Donors in Alberta, Canada.Canadian journal of kidney health and disease · 2018
    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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ngan N LamDepartment of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Krista L LentineCenter for Abdominal Transplantation, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, MO, USA.
Scott KlarenbachDepartment of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Manish M SoodDepartment of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Kidney Research Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Paul J KuwornuInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Ontario, Canada.
Kyla L NaylorInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Ontario, Canada.
Gregory A KnollDepartment of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Kidney Research Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
S Joseph KimInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Ontario, Canada.
Ann YoungDepartment of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Amit X GargInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Ontario, Canada.
University of Toronto · CAInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences · CAUniversity of Alberta · CASaint Louis University · US

Funding

Choosing Immune Suppression in Renal Transplantation by Efficacy and MorbidityR01DK102981 · NIDDK · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI DHARNIDHARKA, VIKAS R. · 2014 to 2018
$1.9M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK102981
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUse of administrative data for outcomes assessment in living kidney donors is increasing given the rarity of complications and challenges with loss to follow-up.

objectiveTo assess the validity of living donor nephrectomy in health care administrative databases compared with the reference standard of manual chart review.

designRetrospective cohort study.

setting5 major transplant centers in Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: Living kidney donors between 2003 and 2010. MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV).

methodsUsing administrative databases, we conducted a retrospective study to determine the validity of diagnostic and procedural codes for living donor nephrectomies. The reference standard was living donor nephrectomies identified through the province's tissue and organ procurement agency, with verification by manual chart review. Operating characteristics (sensitivity and PPV) of various algorithms using diagnostic, procedural, and physician billing codes were calculated.

resultsDuring the study period, there were a total of 1199 living donor nephrectomies. Overall, the best algorithm for identifying living kidney donors was the presence of 1 diagnostic code for kidney donor (ICD-10 Z52.4) and 1 procedural code for kidney procurement/excision (1PC58, 1PC89, 1PC91). Compared with the reference standard, this algorithm had a sensitivity of 97% and a PPV of 90%. The diagnostic and procedural codes performed better than the physician billing codes (sensitivity 60%, PPV 78%). LIMITATIONS: The donor chart review and validation study was performed in Ontario and may not be generalizable to other regions.

conclusionsAn algorithm consisting of 1 diagnostic and 1 procedural code can be reliably used to conduct health services research that requires the accurate determination of living kidney donors at the population level.

Indexed as

administrative datahealth services researchliving kidney donationpositive predictive value

Identifiers

PMID29662679
PMCPMC5896849
OpenAlexW2883024764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.