ArticleBMJ open gastroenterology2020
Clinical codes combined with procedure codes increase diagnostic accuracy of Crohn's disease in a US Military health record.
Article in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Crohn's Disease Case Definitions in Administrative or Claims Databases.Inflammatory bowel diseases · 2023Pooled it
- Beyond ICD-10 Codes: A Multi-class Machine-Learning Approach to Identify True IBD Cases in Electronic Medical Records.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Occurrence of inflammatory bowel disease in patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases: a cohort study: Classification: Epidemiology.The British journal of dermatology · 2022Article
- Demographics and Seasonality of Retinal Detachment, Retinal Breaks, and Posterior Vitreous Detachment from the Intelligent Research in Sight Registry.Ophthalmology science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Previous examinations of International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes to predict accuracy of diagnosis in inflammatory bowel disease have had limited chart review to confirm diagnosis. We aimed to evaluate using the ICD-9-CM for identifying Crohn's disease (CD) in a large electronic health record (EHR) database. Methods: This is a retrospective case-control study with a 3:1 allocation of EHRs of active duty service members diagnosed with CD from 1996 to 2012. Subjects were selected by having two ICD-9-CM codes for CD during the study period. Gastroenterologists reviewed each chart and confirmed the diagnosis of CD by analysing medication history and clinical, endoscopic, histological, and radiographic exams. Results: 300 cases of CD were selected; 14 cases were discarded due to lack of data, limiting our analysis to 284 subjects. Two diagnostic codes for CD had sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of 1.0, 0.53, and 0.69, respectively, for confirmed CD. If two encounters listing CD were with a gastroenterologist, the sensitivity, specificity, and PPV was 0.76, 0.81, and 0.80, respectively. If a colonoscopy was performed within 90 days of any three encounters with a CD code, the sensitivity, specificity, and PPV was 0.51, 0.94, and 0.89, respectively. Conclusions: The poor PPV of ICD-9-CM codes in making the diagnosis of CD should be taken into consideration when interpreting results and when conducting research using such codes. Limiting these codes to those patients who have been given this diagnosis by a gastroenterologist, or to those who have had a colonoscopy near the time of diagnosis, increases the PPV.
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.