ArticleClinical epidemiology2026
Agreement Between ICD-10 Code-Only and Composite Definitions of Asthma Exacerbations in Electronic Health Records: A Multicenter Cohort Study in Taiwan, 2017-2023.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate identification of asthma exacerbations in electronic health records (EHRs) is essential for research and clinical decision-making. While composite definitions incorporating healthcare encounters and systemic corticosteroid use are commonly used, ICD-10 code-only definitions are often applied when detailed data are unavailable. However, their agreement remains unclear. This study aimed to (1) compare an ICD-10 code-only definition of asthma exacerbation with a composite definition, and (2) identify factors associated with concordance between both definitions in EHR data. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study using the Taipei Medical University Clinical Research Database (2017-2023). Asthma exacerbations were identified using (1) an ICD-10 code-only definition and (2) a composite definition incorporating asthma-related emergency department visits, hospitalization, or systemic corticosteroid use. Episodes were defined using a seven-day gap rule. Agreement was assessed using overall percent agreement (OPA), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive percent agreement (PPA), and negative percent agreement (NPA), with generalized estimating equations accounting for within-patient clustering. Results: Among 1,486,449 episodes, 40,180 (2.7%) met the code-only definition and 35,875 (2.4%) met the composite definition. After covariate adjustment, OPA was 0.930 (95% CI, 0.926-0.933). PPV and PPA were 0.313 (95% CI, 0.293-0.334) and 0.309 (95% CI: 0.291-0.328), respectively, while NPV and NPA were high (0.968 and 0.962). Comorbidity burden, hospital, asthma severity, and index year were associated with concordance. Conclusion: ICD-10 code-only definition demonstrated high overall agreement with the composite definition, driven primarily by agreement on non-events, but limited agreement for identified exacerbations. These findings suggest that the two definitions may capture different levels of exacerbations. Several factors were associated with concordance between both definitions, highlighting the importance of accounting for these factors when analyzing EHR data. Code-only definitions may be used cautiously in EHR-based studies, given potential heterogeneity and misclassification.
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.