ArticlePloS one2024
EMS injury cause codes more accurate than emergency department visit ICD-10-CM codes for firearm injury intent in North Carolina.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using EMS data to explore community-level factors associated with firearm violence in North Carolina.Injury epidemiology · 2024Article
- Improving the Performance of a Syndromic Surveillance Definition for Sexual Violence.Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMPArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of data for firearm injury surveillance is crucial for public health surveillance efforts and informing injury prevention measures. While emergency department (ED) visit data can provide near real-time information on firearms injuries, there are concerns surrounding the accuracy of intent coding in these data. We examined whether emergency medical service (EMS) data provide more accurate firearm injury intent coding in comparison to ED data.
methodsWe applied a firearm injury definition to EMS encounter data in NC's statewide syndromic surveillance system (NC DETECT), from January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2022. We manually reviewed each record to determine intent, and the corresponding manual classifications were compared to the injury cause codes entered in the EMS data and to ED visit records where EMS-ED record linkage was possible. We then calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for each intent classification in SAS 9.4 using the manually reviewed intent classifications as the gold standard.
resultsWe identified 9557 EMS encounters from January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2022 meeting our firearm injury definition. After removing false positives and duplicates, 8584 records were available for manual injury classification. Overall, our analysis demonstrated that manual and EMS injury cause code classifications were comparable. However, for the 3401 EMS encounters that could be linked to an ED visit record, sensitivity of the ED ICD-10-CM codes was low for assault and intentional self-harm encounters at 18.2% (CI 16.5-19.9%) and 22.2% (CI 16-28.5%), respectively. This demonstrates a marked difference in the reliability of the intent coding in the two data sources.
conclusionsThis study illustrates both the value of examining EMS encounters for firearm injury intent, and the challenges of accurate intent coding in the ED setting. EMS coding has the potential for more accurate intent coding than ED coding within the context of existing hospital-based coding guidance. This may have implications for future firearm injury research, especially for nonfatal firearm injuries.
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.