ArticleSexually transmitted diseases2026
Validation of diagnostic codes for identifying chlamydial infections from TriNetX electronic health record data in the United States.
Article in Sexually transmitted diseases, 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 accuracy of diagnostic codes for chlamydial infections in electronic health records (EHR) is understudied. TriNetX, a global federated database, provides real-time access to patient-level EHRs, but its suitability for studying chlamydial infections is unknown. This study aimed to validate ICD-10-CM diagnostic codes for chlamydial infections in TriNetX USA data.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using the TriNetX USA Network from 2016 to 2024. Patients aged 14-44 years with chlamydia diagnosis codes (including C. trachomatis, C. psittaci, and C. pneumoniae) or known Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT) results were included. All eligible patients were categorized into four mutually exclusive groups based on the presence of diagnosis code (yes or no) and NAAT results (gold standard, positive or negative): true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative. Positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, and specificity and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for chlamydia diagnosis, including stratified analyses by age, sex, race, ICD codes and calendar year.
resultsAmong 4,501,240 eligible patients (75.9% female), chlamydial infection diagnosis codes showed: PPV: 84.3% (95% CI: 84.2-84.5%); NPV: 95.5% (95% CI: 95.5-95.5%); sensitivity: 42.8% (95% CI: 42.6-42.9%); specificity: 99.3% (95% CI: 99.3-99.4%). Stratified analyses revealed PPV: 80.9-87.1%, NPV: 91.7-97.3%, specificity: 99.1-99.9%, and sensitivity: 10.4-49.7% with lowest sensitivity observed in C. trachomatis code analysis.
conclusionsMost diagnostic codes can accurately identify chlamydial infections in the TriNetX USA Network. However, low sensitivity suggests that many cases could be missed without laboratory test results.
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.