Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36802958›Full record

ArticleHealth information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia2024

Unsupervised algorithms to identify potential under-coding of secondary diagnoses in hospitalisations databases in Portugal.

Diana Portela, Rita Amaral, Pedro P Rodrigues, Alberto Freitas, Elísio Costa, João A Fonseca, Bernardo Sousa-Pinto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Diana PortelaDepartment of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences (MEDCIDS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7913-7461
Rita AmaralDepartment of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences (MEDCIDS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-0233-830X
Pedro P RodriguesDepartment of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences (MEDCIDS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Portugal.
Alberto FreitasDepartment of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences (MEDCIDS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-2113-9653
Elísio CostaCenter for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Portugal.
João A FonsecaDepartment of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences (MEDCIDS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Portugal.
Bernardo Sousa-PintoDepartment of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences (MEDCIDS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuantifying and dealing with lack of consistency in administrative databases (namely, under-coding) requires tracking patients longitudinally without compromising anonymity, which is often a challenging task.

objectiveThis study aimed to (i) assess and compare different hierarchical clustering methods on the identification of individual patients in an administrative database that does not easily allow tracking of episodes from the same patient; (ii) quantify the frequency of potential under-coding; and (iii) identify factors associated with such phenomena.

methodWe analysed the Portuguese National Hospital Morbidity Dataset, an administrative database registering all hospitalisations occurring in Mainland Portugal between 2011-2015. We applied different approaches of hierarchical clustering methods (either isolated or combined with partitional clustering methods), to identify potential individual patients based on demographic variables and comorbidities. Diagnoses codes were grouped into the Charlson an Elixhauser comorbidity defined groups. The algorithm displaying the best performance was used to quantify potential under-coding. A generalised mixed model (GML) of binomial regression was applied to assess factors associated with such potential under-coding.

resultsWe observed that the hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) + k-means clustering method with comorbidities grouped according to the Charlson defined groups was the algorithm displaying the best performance (with a Rand Index of 0.99997). We identified potential under-coding in all Charlson comorbidity groups, ranging from 3.5% (overall diabetes) to 27.7% (asthma). Overall, being male, having medical admission, dying during hospitalisation or being admitted at more specific and complex hospitals were associated with increased odds of potential under-coding. DISCUSSION: We assessed several approaches to identify individual patients in an administrative database and, subsequently, by applying HCA + k-means algorithm, we tracked coding inconsistency and potentially improved data quality. We reported consistent potential under-coding in all defined groups of comorbidities and potential factors associated with such lack of completeness.

conclusionOur proposed methodological framework could both enhance data quality and act as a reference for other studies relying on databases with similar problems.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDatabases, FactualHospitalizationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overClinical CodingCluster AnalysisComorbidityFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPortugaladministrative databaseclustering algorithmscomorbiditiesdata qualityhealth information managementmedical records: evaluationpublic health informaticsunder-codingunsupervised machine learning

Identifiers

PMID36802958
PMCPMC11408983

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.