ArticlePloS one2020
Accuracy of ICD-9 codes in identifying patients with peptic ulcer and gastrointestinal hemorrhage in the regional healthcare administrative database of Umbria.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of phenotype algorithms for the detection of adverse events in electronic health record data: a multicentre study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Atrial fibrillation as a novel risk factor for retinal stroke: A protocol for a population-based retrospective cohort study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeptic ulcer is a widespread disease, frequently complicated by perforation and bleeding. Administrative databases are useful tool to perform epidemiological and drug utilization studies, but they need a validation process based on a comparison with the original data contained in the medical charts. Our aim was to evaluate the accuracy of the ICD-9 codes in identifying patients with peptic ulcer and gastrointestinal hemorrhage in the regional administrative database of Umbria.
methodsThe index test of our study was the hospital discharge abstract database of the Umbria region (Italy), while the reference standard was the clinical information collected in the medical charts. The study population were adult patients with a hospital discharge for peptic ulcer or gastrointestinal hemorrhage in the period 2012-2014. A random sample of cases and non-cases was selected and the corresponding medical charts were reviewed. Cases of peptic ulcer were confirmed based on endoscopy, radiology, and surgery, while adjudication of gastrointestinal hemorrhage was based on presence of hematemesis, melena, and rectal bleeding.
resultsOverall, we reviewed 445 clinical charts of cases and 80 clinical charts of non-cases. The diagnostic accuracy results were: code 531 (gastric ulcer), sensitivity and NPV 98%, specificity 88%, and PPV 91%; code 532 (duodenal ulcer), sensitivity and NPV 100%, specificity and PPV 98%; code 534 (gastrojejunal ulcer), sensitivity and NPV 100%, specificity 70%, and PPV 45%; code 578 (gastrointestinal hemorrhage), sensitivity 96%, specificity 90%, PPV and NPV 94%.
conclusionsOur results showed a high level of diagnostic accuracy for most of the codes considered. The ICD-9 code 534 of gastrojejunal ulcer had a lower level of specificity and PPV due to false positives, being mainly misclassifications for coding errors. These validated codes can be used for future epidemiological studies and for health services research.
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.