ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2026
Validity of ICD-10 codes for identifying gastrointestinal bleeding in anticoagulated patients: an encounter-level diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) encounter diagnosis codes are commonly used to identify gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in electronic health record (EHR)-based research and clinical decision-support (CDS) tools. However, variability in coding accuracy may introduce misclassification bias, particularly among patients receiving oral anticoagulants (OACs). Contemporary, institution-specific validation of ICD-10 GIB codes is needed in the post-ICD-10 implementation era. We conducted a diagnostic accuracy study of ICD-10 encounter diagnosis codes for GIB among adults receiving warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) within a large academic healthcare system. A random sample of inpatient and emergency department encounters between June and December 2024 was identified. Manual chart review served as the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated overall and stratified by anatomic bleeding site, anticoagulant class, and admission status. Among 656 anticoagulated encounters, 26 (4.0%) had chart-confirmed GIB. Overall sensitivity was 81% (95% CI, 60%-93%), specificity 98% (95% CI, 96%-99%), PPV 64% (95% CI, 45%-79%), and NPV 99% (95% CI, 98%-100%). The DOR was 215.6 (95% CI, 69.6-667.6). Sensitivity was higher for upper versus lower GIB (86% vs. 50%), while specificity remained high across subgroups. Diagnostic performance was similar between DOAC- and warfarin-treated encounters, though estimates for warfarin were imprecise due to small event counts. PPV varied across individual ICD-10 codes, with symptom-specific codes demonstrating higher predictive accuracy. ICD-10 encounter diagnosis codes demonstrated high specificity and NPV for identifying GIB among patients receiving OACs, supporting their use for ruling out bleeding events in EHR-based research and CDS. However, moderate PPV and heterogeneity across codes and clinical contexts indicate that ICD-10 codes alone should be used cautiously when defining GIB outcomes. Local validation remains essential to ensure reliable bleeding identification in anticoagulated populations.
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.