ArticleObstetrics and gynecology2025
Analysis of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Coding Practices at Referral Centers and Other Obstetric Hospitals for Placenta Accreta Spectrum Disorder.
Article in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Placenta Praevia and Placenta Accreta Spectrum: Diagnosis and Management: Green-Top Guideline No. 27a.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- Cesarean Scar Implantation in the Evolution of Placenta Accreta Spectrum: Implications for Recognition and Clinical Management.O&G open · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the topographic classification of placenta accreta spectrum: protocol for an ongoing prospective multicenter study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes for placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) by analyzing frequency and reasons for miscoding, with particular attention to differences between PAS referral centers and other nonreferral obstetric hospitals.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of all deliveries with ICD-10 codes for PAS in the two large health care systems (17 hospitals, including two PAS referral centers) in one Mountain West state between September 2015 and December 2023. Medical records were evaluated independently by three reviewers to determine whether PAS was present using International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics clinical or histopathologic criteria (true PAS). The primary outcome was false-positive diagnosis of PAS. For each false-positive diagnosis, a reason for misapplication of the code was assigned. Composite maternal morbidity (including blood loss of 1,500 mL or more, length of stay more than 4 days, reoperation, shock, coagulopathy, genitourinary injury, thromboembolism, or mortality), as well as coding accuracy, were compared between referral centers and other hospitals.
resultsAmong 394 deliveries with PAS codes (0.15% of all deliveries), 39.6% (95% CI, 34.7-44.4%) were classified as false-positive. False-positive rates were significantly higher at nonreferral centers compared with referral centers (73.6% vs 23.8%, P <.001). The most common reason (42.9%) for a false-positive diagnosis was hemorrhage due to another etiology not meeting clinical or histopathologic criteria for PAS. In 22.4% of false-positive diagnoses, there was antenatal suspicion of PAS, but PAS was not confirmed at delivery. All patients with PAS 3 (percreta) and nearly all patients with PAS 2 (increta) were managed at referral centers. After adjusting for maternal age, prior cesarean delivery, gestational age at delivery, in vitro fertilization, and other past uterine procedures, the odds of composite maternal morbidity were higher at PAS centers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.54; 95% CI, 1.39-4.66), but this difference was not significant when analyzing only true PAS cases (aOR 1.51; 95% CI, 0.63-3.65).
conclusionThe ICD-10 codes for PAS were misapplied frequently, particularly at nonreferral centers. Among true PAS cases, despite higher disease severity at referral centers, maternal morbidity was not significantly different between center types after adjustment. These findings have important implications for PAS research methodology and quality metrics that rely on administrative data.
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.