ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2019
Sensitivity of Administrative Coding in Identifying Inpatient Acute Strokes Complicating Procedures or Other Diseases in UK Hospitals.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2019. 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.
- Infection, Inflammation, and Poststroke Cognitive Impairment.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Strategy for reliable identification of ischaemic stroke, thrombolytics and thrombectomy in large administrative databases.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2021Article
- Re: Author response regarding the Letter to the Editor about the article 'Temporal trends in the accuracy of hospital diagnostic coding for identifying acute stroke: A population-based study'.European stroke journal · 2020Article
- Temporal trends in the accuracy of hospital diagnostic coding for identifying acute stroke: A population-based study.European stroke journal · 2020Article
- Sensitivity of Administrative Coding in Identifying Inpatient Acute Strokes Complicating Procedures or Other Diseases in UK Hospitals.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Administrative hospital diagnostic coding data are increasingly used in "big data" research and to assess complication rates after surgery or acute medical conditions. Acute stroke is a common complication of several procedures/conditions, such as carotid interventions, but data are lacking on the sensitivity of administrative coding in identifying acute stroke during inpatient stay. Methods and Results Using all acute strokes ascertained in a population-based cohort (2002-2017) as the reference, we determined the sensitivity of hospital administrative diagnostic codes ( International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision; ICD-10) for identifying acute strokes that occurred during hospital admission for other reasons, stratified by coding strategies, study periods, and stroke severity (National Institutes of Health Stroke Score</≥5). Of 3011 acute strokes, 198 (6.6%) occurred during hospital admissions for procedures/other diseases, including 122 (61.6%) major strokes. Using stroke-specific codes ( ICD-10=I60-I61 and I63-I64) in the primary diagnostic position, 66 of the 198 cases were correctly identified (sensitivity for any stroke, 33.3%; 95% CI, 27.1-40.2; minor stroke, 30.3%; 95% CI, 21.0-41.5; major stroke, 35.2%; 95% CI, 27.2-44.2), with no improvement of sensitivity over time ( P
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.