ArticleClinical epidemiology2026
Sensitivity of Administrative Coding for Heart Disease in Pregnancy.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 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
Purpose: Heart disease complicating pregnancy is a major contributor to maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide, yet its true burden remains underexplored. Electronic medical records may help address this gap. However, the accuracy of the data that can be obtained needs to be established before undertaking estimations. This study evaluates the sensitivity of administrative coding in identifying pregnancies complicated by heart disease during childbirth admissions in a tertiary Australian setting. Patients and Methods: Using a prospectively maintained clinical database of 155 women who received specialized cardio-obstetric care, we compared ICD-10-AM codes recorded in hospital administrative data related to their delivery admission against a cardiologist-adjudicated reference standard. Case and individual code-level comparisons were undertaken. Results: The sensitivity of administrative coding for detecting any cardiac disease was 66.5%. Only 25.2% of cases were completely matched to the clinical diagnosis, and 41.3% mismatched (partial or incorrect). Notably, 33.5% of cases were not coded with any cardiac-related code. At the individual code level, sensitivity varied widely across disease categories: the lowest sensitivity (19%) was shown for arrhythmias. Congenital heart disease, the most common etiology in this cohort, was frequently not coded, particularly when surgically corrected. Conclusion: In addition to incorrect coding, findings reflect the structure of ICD-10-AM, which captures only diagnoses requiring active management during the hospital encounter. As most cardio-obstetric care is delivered antenatally, mainly to prevent peripartum complications, well-managed conditions with uncomplicated delivery may not be coded, leading to underestimation that is independent of the severity of the cardiac condition and associated risk. While exact estimates of coding sensitivity may vary by context, most of the identified issues would be common across Australia and the world. Epidemiological studies and service planning based on ICD-10-AM data should consider enhanced case-ascertainment strategies, including patient-level data linkage and diagnostic look-back periods, to improve accuracy.
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.