Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31414582›Full record

ArticleBirth defects research2019

The impact of the ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM transition on the prevalence of birth defects among infant hospitalizations in the United States.

Jason L Salemi, Jean Paul Tanner, Russell S Kirby, Janet D Cragan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Birth defects research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

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

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

4 authors.

Jason L SalemiDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.ORCID 0000-0002-0077-6023
Jean Paul TannerBirth Defects Surveillance Program, College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.
Russell S KirbyBirth Defects Surveillance Program, College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.ORCID 0000-0002-3489-401X
Janet D CraganNational Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany public health surveillance programs utilize hospital discharge data in their estimation of disease prevalence. These databases commonly use the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding scheme, which transitioned from the ICD-9 clinical modification (ICD-9-CM) to ICD-10-CM on October 1, 2015. This study examined this transition's impact on the prevalence of major birth defects among infant hospitalizations.

methodsUsing data from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality-sponsored National Inpatient Sample, hospitalizations during the first year of life with a discharge date between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016 were used to estimate the monthly national hospital prevalence of 46 birth defects for the ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM timeframes separately. Survey-weighted Poisson regression was used to estimate 95% confidence intervals for each hospital prevalence. Interrupted time series framework and corresponding segmented regression was used to estimate the immediate change in monthly hospital prevalence following the ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM transition.

resultsBetween 2012 and 2016, over 21 million inpatient hospitalizations occurred during the first year of life. Among the 46 defects studied, statistically significant decreases in the immediate hospital prevalence of five defects and significant increases in the immediate hospital prevalence of eight defects were observed after the ICD-10-CM transition.

conclusionsChanges in prevalence were expected based on changes to ICD-10-CM. Observed changes for some conditions may result from variation in monthly hospital prevalence or initial unfamiliarity of coders with ICD-10-CM. These findings may help birth defects surveillance programs evaluate and interpret changes in their data related to the ICD-10-CM transition.

Indexed as

Congenital AbnormalitiesDatabases, FactualFemaleHospitalizationHospitalsHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInternational Classification of DiseasesMalePopulation SurveillancePrevalenceUnited Statesbirth defectsclassificationcodinghospital discharge dataInternational Classification of Diseasesinterrupted time seriesNational Inpatient Sample

Identifiers

PMID31414582
PMCPMC7194333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.