ArticleHealth information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia2026
Concordance between ICD-10-AM clinical coding and SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for COVID-19 in Australian hospitals.
Article in Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe introduction by the World Health Organization of specific International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10) clinical codes for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in early 2020 was key to standardising disease reporting and supporting global public health efforts. However, the concordance between these clinical codes and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases based on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results remains largely unexamined in Australia.
objectiveThis study evaluated the concordance between ICD-10 Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM) code U07.1 (COVID-19, virus identified) and SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results in admitted patient records, to improve case identification.
methodThis retrospective study analysed routinely collected electronic medical record data from 13 public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Clinical coding of ICD-10-AM U07.1 was assessed using SARS-CoV-2 PCR results as the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to assess diagnostic concordance, adjusting for patient demographics.
resultsAmong 25,724 admissions with a SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, 39.4% were confirmed COVID-19 cases based on positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results. The ICD-10-AM clinical coding of U07.1 demonstrated excellent accuracy, with a sensitivity of 91.5% (95% CI: 90.8-92.2%) and 94.1% (95% CI: 93.6-94.6%) compared to conventional and rapid PCR-confirmed cases, respectively.
conclusionThe ICD-10-AM code U07.1 aligns well with SARS-CoV-2 PCR-confirmed cases, supporting its use as a reliable marker for COVID-19 in hospital data for surveillance and research purposes.Implications for health information management practice:Ongoing improvements in clinical coding practices are necessary to minimise misclassification and enhance accuracy for public health planning.
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.