Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36656445›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2023

Development and Validation of ICD-10-CM-based Algorithms for Date of Last Menstrual Period, Pregnancy Outcomes, and Infant Outcomes.

Andrea K Chomistek, Kelesitse Phiri, Michael C Doherty, Jenna F Calderbank, Stephanie E Chiuve, Brenda Hinman McIlroy, Michael C Snabes, Cheryl Enger, John D Seeger

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2023. 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 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  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. Pregnancy episodes in All of Us: harnessing multi-source data for pregnancy-related research.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Andrea K ChomistekOptum, 1325 Boylston Street, 11th Floor, Boston, MA, 02215, USA. andrea.chomistek@optum.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8764-1446
Kelesitse PhiriOptum, 1325 Boylston Street, 11th Floor, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Michael C DohertyOptum, 1325 Boylston Street, 11th Floor, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Jenna F CalderbankOptum, 1325 Boylston Street, 11th Floor, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
Stephanie E ChiuveAbbVie, Inc, North Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3524-8917
Brenda Hinman McIlroyAbbVie, Inc, North Chicago, IL, USA.
Michael C SnabesAbbVie, Inc, North Chicago, IL, USA.
Cheryl EngerOptum, 1325 Boylston Street, 11th Floor, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.
John D SeegerOptum, 1325 Boylston Street, 11th Floor, Boston, MA, 02215, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8020-3144

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND

objectiveValidation studies of algorithms for pregnancy outcomes based on International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes are important for conducting drug safety research using administrative claims databases. To facilitate the conduct of pregnancy safety studies, this exploratory study aimed to develop and validate ICD-10-CM-based claims algorithms for date of last menstrual period (LMP) and pregnancy outcomes using medical records.

methodsUsing a mother-infant-linked claims database, the study included women with a pregnancy between 2016-2017 and their infants. Claims-based algorithms for LMP date utilized codes for gestational age (Z3A codes). The primary outcomes were major congenital malformations (MCMs) and spontaneous abortion; additional secondary outcomes were also evaluated. Each pregnancy outcome was identified using a claims-based simple algorithm, defined as presence of ≥ 1 claim for the outcome. Positive predictive values (PPV) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

resultsOverall, 586 medical records were sought and 365 (62.3%) were adjudicated, including 125 records each for MCMs and spontaneous abortion. Last menstrual period date was validated among maternal charts procured for pregnancy outcomes and fewer charts were adjudicated for the secondary outcomes. The median difference in days between LMP date based on Z3A codes and adjudicated LMP date was 4.0 (interquartile range: 2.0-10.0). The PPV of the simple algorithm for spontaneous abortion was 84.7% (95% CI 78.3, 91.2). The PPV for the MCM algorithm was < 70%. The algorithms for the secondary outcomes pre-eclampsia, premature delivery, and low birthweight performed well, with PPVs > 70%.

conclusionsThe ICD-10-CM claims-based algorithm for spontaneous abortion performed well and may be used in pregnancy studies. Further algorithm refinement for MCMs is needed. The algorithms for LMP date and the secondary outcomes would benefit from additional validation in a larger sample.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousPregnancy OutcomeAlgorithmsDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansInfantInternational Classification of DiseasesPredictive Value of TestsPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID36656445
PMCPMC9981491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.