ArticleJournal of medical systems2023
Positive Predictive Values of Anaphylaxis Diagnosis in Claims Data: A Multi-Institutional Study in Taiwan.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Effectiveness of Timolol-Based Fixed-Combination Regimens for Glaucoma: a Retrospective Cohort Study Using Target Trial Emulation Framework.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Positive Predictive Values of ICD-10-CM Diagnostic Codes in Identifying Diabetic Macular Edema in Claims Data: A Multi-Institutional Study in Taiwan.Clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and risk of chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorders in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stage 1-3 chronic kidney disease.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2025Article
- Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD): in the Era of Artificial Intelligence, Causal Inference, and Data Security.Clinical epidemiology · 2025Review
- Hospitalizations for Food-Induced Anaphylaxis Between 2016 and 2021: Population-Based Epidemiologic Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Observational
- Adoption of network and plan-do-check-action in the international classification of disease 10 coding.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Use of SGLT2 Inhibitors vs GLP-1 RAs and Anemia in Patients With Diabetes and CKD.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Validating ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes for Guillain-Barré Syndrome in Taiwan's National Health Insurance Claims Database.Clinical epidemiology · 2024Article
- Validation of Diagnostic Codes to Identify Glaucoma in Taiwan's Claims Data: A Multi-Institutional Study.Clinical epidemiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Real-world data sources can facilitate essential understanding of the epidemiological features of anaphylaxis. However, the accuracy of case-identifying definitions based on diagnosis codes for anaphylaxis in healthcare databases remains understudied. We conducted a cross-sectional study analyzing claims data from the largest multi-institutional healthcare system in Taiwan during 2017-2021. We included patients with incident anaphylaxis identified by either ICD-10-CM codes for anaphylaxis (Group 1) or ICD-10-CM codes for severe allergic or drug adverse events and additional modifier codes for acute allergy events (Group 2). We randomly selected 20% of the cases to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of anaphylaxis case-identifying definitions in Groups 1 and 2 after review of electronic medical records by two physicians. From the original cohort (n = 2,176), we randomly selected 433 patients with either a diagnosis of anaphylaxis (Group 1), or a diagnosis of severe allergic and drug adverse events with additional modifier codes for acute allergy events (Group 2). In Group 1, we judged 135 / 170 patients as true anaphylaxis cases, giving a PPV of 79.4% (95% CI: 73.3-85.5). In Group 2, we judged 47 / 263 patients as true anaphylaxis cases, giving a PPV of 17.9% (95% CI: 13.3-22.5). In conclusion, acceptable PPVs were observed when anaphylaxis cases were identified by ICD-10-CM codes for anaphylaxis, but not by ICD-10-CM codes for severe allergic or drug adverse event with additional modifier codes for acute allergy events. Our multi-institutional findings could serve as a fundamental reference for further studies of anaphylaxis based on real-world healthcare databases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37695529What 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.