Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31982637›Full record

SynthesisDrug and alcohol dependence2020

Validity of International Classification of Diseases codes in identifying illicit drug use target conditions using medical record data as a reference standard: A systematic review.

Kaitlin M McGrew, Juell B Homco, Tabitha Garwe, Hanh Dung Dao, Mary B Williams, Douglas A Drevets, S Reza Jafarzadeh, Yan Daniel Zhao, Hélène Carabin

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Drug and alcohol dependence, 2020. 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. Review
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

9 authors.

Kaitlin M McGrewDepartment of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States. Electronic address: Kaitlin-McGrew@ouhsc.edu.
Juell B HomcoDepartment of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States; Department of Medical Informatics, OU-TU School of Community Medicine, Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States. Electronic address: Juell-Homco@ouhsc.edu.
Tabitha GarweDepartment of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States. Electronic address: Tabitha-Garwe@ouhsc.edu.
Hanh Dung DaoDepartment of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States. Electronic address: HanhDung-Dao@ouhsc.edu.
Mary B WilliamsDepartment of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States; Department of Family and Community Medicine, OU-TU School of Community Medicine, Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States. Electronic address: Mary-Williams@ouhsc.edu.
Douglas A DrevetsDepartment of Internal Medicine- Infectious Diseases, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States; Medical Services, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States. Electronic address: Douglas-Drevets@ouhsc.edu.
S Reza JafarzadehDepartment of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. Electronic address: srjafarz@bu.edu.
Yan Daniel ZhaoDepartment of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States. Electronic address: daniel-zhao@ouhsc.edu.
Hélène CarabinDepartment of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States; Département de pathologie et de microbiologie, Faculté de Médecine vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada; Département de médecine sociale et préventive, École de Santé Publique, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Centre de Recherche en Santé Publique (CReSP), Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada. Electronic address: helene.carabin@umontreal.ca.

Funding

Tracking and Evaluation CoreU54GM104938 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HLTH SCIENCES CTR · PI TIMOTHY M VANWAGONER · 2013 to 2026
$68.2M
Research and Evaluation Support Core Unit (RESCU Core)P30AR072571 · NIAMS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI Michael Paul Lavalley · 2019 to 2026
$6.9M
Dynamic Treatment Regimens of Physical Activity for Persons with OsteoarthritisR21AR074578 · NIAMS · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI JAFARZADEH, S. REZA · 2019 to 2020
$411k
Effects of NSAIDs and non-NSAID Analgesics on Osteoarthritis OutcomesR03AG060272 · NIA · BOSTON UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CAMPUS · PI JAFARZADEH, S. REZA · 2018 to 2019
$165k
NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR072571NIAMS NIH HHS R21 AR074578NIA NIH HHS R03 AG060272NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104938
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe twenty-first century opioid crisis has spurred interest in using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code algorithms to identify patients using illicit drugs from administrative healthcare data. We conducted a systematic review of studies that validated ICD code algorithms for illicit drug use against a reference standard of medical record data.

methodsSystematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were conducted for studies published between 1980 and 2018 in English, French, Italian, or Spanish. We included validation studies of ICD-9 or ICD-10 code algorithms for an illicit drug use target condition (e.g., illicit drug use, abuse, or dependence (UAD), illicit drug use-related complications) given the sensitivity or specificity was reported or could be calculated. Bias was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Version 2 (QUADAS-2) tool.

resultsSix of the 1210 articles identified met the inclusion criteria. For validation studies of broad UAD (n = 4), the specificity was nearly perfect, but the sensitivity ranged from 47% to 83%, with higher sensitivities tending to occur in higher prevalence populations. For validation studies of injection drug use (IDU)-associated infective endocarditis (n = 2), sensitivity and specificity were poor due to the lack of an ICD code for IDU. For all six studies, the risk of bias for the QUADAS-2 "reference standard" and "flow/timing domains" was scored as "unclear" due to insufficient reporting.

conclusionsFew studies have validated ICD code algorithms for illicit drug use target conditions, and available evidence is challenging to interpret due to inadequate reporting. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42019118401.

Indexed as

Illicit DrugsAlgorithmsData AccuracyDatabases, FactualHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesMedical RecordsReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsSubstance-Related DisordersIllicit DrugsDrug usersInternational Classification of DiseasesSubstance-Related disordersSystematic reviewValidation studies

Identifiers

PMID31982637
PMCPMC9533471

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.