ArticleJournal of medical virology2022
Comparing reliability of ICD-10-based COVID-19 comorbidity data to manual chart review, a retrospective cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chronic Conditions and Mortality in Medicare Beneficiaries Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- A retrospective analysis using comorbidity detecting algorithmic software to determine the incidence of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code omissions and appropriateness of Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) code modifiers.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Article
- Validation of automated data abstraction for SCCM discovery VIRUS COVID-19 registry: practical EHR export pathways (VIRUS-PEEP).Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Impact of neurofibromatosis type 1 in an adult community population.Neuro-oncology practice · 2022Article
- Comparing reliability of ICD-10-based COVID-19 comorbidity data to manual chart review, a retrospective cross-sectional study.Journal of medical virology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
International Statistical Classification of Disease and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision codes (ICD-10) are used to characterize cohort comorbidities. Recent literature does not demonstrate standardized extraction methods.
objectiveCompare COVID-19 cohort manual-chart-review and ICD-10-based comorbidity data; characterize the accuracy of different methods of extracting ICD-10-code-based comorbidity, including the temporal accuracy with respect to critical time points such as day of admission.
designRetrospective cross-sectional study. MEASUREMENTS: ICD-10-based-data performance characteristics relative to manual-chart-review.
resultsDischarge billing diagnoses had a sensitivity of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79-0.85; comorbidity range: 0.35-0.96). The past medical history table had a sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69-0.76; range: 0.44-0.87). The active problem list had a sensitivity of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.63-0.71; range: 0.47-0.71). On day of admission, the active problem list had a sensitivity of 0.58 (95% CI: 0.54-0.63; range: 0.30-0.68)and past medical history table had a sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CI: 0.43-0.53; range: 0.30-0.56). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: ICD-10-based comorbidity data performance varies depending on comorbidity, data source, and time of retrieval; there are notable opportunities for improvement. Future researchers should clearly outline comorbidity data source and validate against manual-chart-review.
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.