ArticleClinical kidney journal2024
Diagnostic validity and solute-corrected prevalence for hyponatremia and hypernatremia among 1 813 356 admissions.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 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.
- Development and Temporal Validation of Machine Learning Models for Hyponatremia Risk in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Nationwide Claims-Based Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Preoperative rehabilitation and in-hospital mortality in delayed hip fracture surgery: a nationwide cohort study with stratification by kidney function.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and hypothesis: We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic validity of the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes for hyponatremia and hypernatremia, using a database containing laboratory data. We also aimed to clarify whether corrections for blood glucose, triglyceride, and total protein may affect the prevalence and the diagnostic validity. Methods: We retrospectively identified admissions with laboratory values using a Japanese hospital-based database. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive/negative predictive values of recorded ICD-10-based diagnoses of hyponatremia (E87.1) and hypernatremia (E87.2), using serum sodium measurements during hospitalization (<135 and >145 mmol/l, respectively) as the reference standard. We also performed analyses with corrections of sodium concentrations for blood glucose, triglyceride, and total protein. Results: We identified 1 813 356 hospitalizations, including 419 470 hyponatremic and 132 563 hypernatremic cases based on laboratory measurements, and 18 378 hyponatremic and 2950 hypernatremic cases based on ICD-10 codes. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the ICD-10 codes were 4.1%, 99.9%, 92.5%, and 77.6%, respectively, for hyponatremia and 2.2%, >99.9%, 96.5%, and 92.8%, respectively, for hypernatremia. Corrections for blood glucose, triglyceride, and total protein did not largely alter diagnostic values, although prevalence changed especially after corrections for blood glucose and total protein. Conclusions: The ICD-10 diagnostic codes showed low sensitivity, high specificity, and high positive predictive value for identifying hyponatremia and hypernatremia. Corrections for glucose or total protein did not affect diagnostic values but would be necessary for accurate prevalence calculation.
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.