ArticleJournal of health economics and outcomes research2026
Validity and Predictors of Medical Claims Coding for the Identification of Patients with Obesity.
Article in Journal of health economics and outcomes research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The evolving obesity treatment landscape requires examining clinical and economic outcomes, but ICD-10-CM coding inconsistencies hinder patient identification in claims databases. Objectives: This study aims to validate obesity diagnosis codes and identify factors influencing their utilization. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized claims and clinical data from the Healthcare Integrated Research Database (HIRD®) to identify adults with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or higher, spanning the period from June 2021 to October 2022. The study examined the use of ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes for obesity across two distinct timeframes: a 6-month period before and after the index date for prevalence and modeling purposes, and a 60-day window around the index date for validity calculations. For validation, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the ICD-10-CM codes were measured, classifying patients as true or false positives or negatives based on their BMI and coding presence. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors predicting obesity coding, guided by clinical reasoning, statistical results, and refined through backward elimination regression. Results: Out of 2 218 115 patients with available BMI data during the relevant period, 966 427 (44%) had a BMI of 30 kg/m² or above. The study identified 380,606 true positives, 17 422 false positives, 1 234 266 true negatives, and 585 821 false negatives, resulting in a PPV of 95.6%, a NPV of 67.8%, a specificity of 98.6%, and a sensitivity of 39.4%. The prevalence of obesity coding was 54%. Increased likelihood of coding was associated with being female, over the age of 24, non-White, insured by Medicare Advantage, having lower socioeconomic status, higher BMI, and receiving weight management interventions. Conclusion: ICD-10-CM codes demonstrate high specificity and PPV but low sensitivity, indicating that while coded cases are likely true obesity, many patients with obesity are not captured in claims.
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.