ArticleEpilepsia2025
Development and validation of International Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th Revision, Clinical Modification-based algorithms to identify adult epilepsy in electronic health records.
Article in Epilepsia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveElectronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly used to conduct research and evaluate epilepsy quality of care. We examined the accuracy of International Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM, ICD-10-CM)- and antiseizure medicine (ASM)-based algorithms for adult epilepsy.
methodsData from a diverse New York multicenter EHR were queried to identify encounters between January 1, 2012 and September 20, 2018 coded with an epilepsy/seizure ICD-CM code or an ASM. Eight hundred adults were randomly selected (350 with epilepsy-related codes, 150 with an ASM, and 300 with drug-resistant epilepsy codes). With chart review defined as the reference standard, sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and Youden index (YI) were calculated to evaluate various ICD-9-CM-, ICD-10-CM-, ± ASM-based algorithms' accuracy in predicting epilepsy.
resultsNinety-four algorithms were tested. A total of 435 (54.4%) patients had definite epilepsy. Estimates ranged as follows: YI = .18-.68, Sn = .59-.95, Sp = .52-.97, PPV = .67-.92, and NPV = .51-.93. The best algorithms were as follows. Highest YI for ICD-9-CM was single encounter with 345 (except 345.2 or 345.3) or 345.2, 345.3, or 780.3 with an ASM (Sn = .95, Sp = .73, PPV = .81, NPV = .92, YI = .68). Highest Y1 for ICD-10-CM was one encounter with G40 in primary diagnostic position or ≥2 encounters with G40 in any diagnostic position (Sn = .82, Sp = .85, PPV = .87, NPV = .80, YI = .67). Highest sensitivity was any encounter with ICD-9-CM 345 or 780.39 or ICD-10-CM G40, G41, or R56.9 (Sn = .96, Sp = .57, PPV = .73, NPV = .93, YI = .53). Highest specificity was ≥1 hospitalization with ICD-9-CM 345.x (except 345.2 and 345.3) or ICD-10-CM G40.x (Sn = .21, Sp = .97, PPV = .89, NPV = .51, YI = .18). SIGNIFICANCE: We identified ICD-9/10-CM-based case definitions (with and without ASM) that were sensitive and specific for epilepsy. Ultimately, extensive algorithms are provided to help inform case definition selection according to future study aims.
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.