Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41777679›Full record

ArticleClinical kidney journal2026

Sensitivity and positive predictive value of diagnosis codes for acute kidney injury in Denmark.

Sidse Høyer, Uffe Heide-Jørgensen, Simon Kok Jensen, Anton Pottegård, Christian Fynbo Christiansen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sidse HøyerDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital and Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1477-5400
Uffe Heide-JørgensenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital and Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Simon Kok JensenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital and Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0032-131X
Anton PottegårdClinical Pharmacology, Pharmacy, and Environmental Medicine, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9314-5679
Christian Fynbo ChristiansenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital and Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0727-953X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality but is likely underrecorded in health registers. This study examined the sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of AKI diagnoses compared with laboratory-identified AKI. Methods: In this observational study we analysed data from the Danish National Patient Register and laboratory databases from January 2007 through November 2023. Diagnoses of AKI according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) were compared with laboratory-identified AKI episodes defined by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) creatinine criteria. Sensitivity was defined as the proportion of laboratory-identified AKI episodes captured by ICD-10 codes within 30 days before or after the episode's index date and PPV was the proportion of ICD-10-coded AKI episodes confirmed by the KDIGO criteria within a ±30-day window. Analyses were stratified by sex, age, AKI stage, setting, comorbidity and short-term mortality. Results: A total of 947 209 laboratory-identified AKI episodes and 80 649 ICD-10-coded AKI episodes were included. Overall, sensitivity was 7.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.4-7.5], varying by stage (4.0% for stage 1 versus 21.7% for stage 3) and setting (6.0% for hospital acquired versus 8.6% for community acquired). The overall PPV was 90.6% (95% CI 90.4-90.9), with little variation across subgroups. Conclusion: ICD-10 codes of AKI demonstrate a high PPV, ensuring accuracy in identifying true AKI episodes. However, the low sensitivity highlights a risk of underestimating AKI occurrence. Laboratory data should be prioritized for comprehensive AKI identification and potential biases addressed when relying on diagnosis codes in research.

Indexed as

acute kidney injuryICD-10 codeslaboratory datapositive predictive valuesensitivity

Identifiers

PMID41777679
PMCPMC12950966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.