Sensitivity and specificity of International Classification of Diseases algorithms (ICD-9 and ICD-10) used to identify opioid-related overdose cases: A systematic review and an example of estimation using Bayesian latent class models in the absence of gold standards.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Fiston Ikwa Ndol Mbutiwi, Ayekoe Patrick Junior Yapo, Serge Esako Toirambe, Erin Rees, Rebecca Plouffe, Hélène Carabin
{"title":"Sensitivity and specificity of International Classification of Diseases algorithms (ICD-9 and ICD-10) used to identify opioid-related overdose cases: A systematic review and an example of estimation using Bayesian latent class models in the absence of gold standards.","authors":"Fiston Ikwa Ndol Mbutiwi, Ayekoe Patrick Junior Yapo, Serge Esako Toirambe, Erin Rees, Rebecca Plouffe, Hélène Carabin","doi":"10.17269/s41997-024-00915-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to summarize validity estimates of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes in identifying opioid overdose (OOD) among patient data from emergency rooms, emergency medical services, inpatient, outpatient, administrative, medical claims, and mortality, and estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the algorithms in the absence of a perfect reference standard.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically reviewed studies published before December 8, 2023, and identified with Medline and Embase. Studies reporting sufficient details to recreate a 2 × 2 table comparing the ICD algorithms to a reference standard in diagnosing OOD-related events were included. We used Bayesian latent class models (BLCM) to estimate the posterior sensitivity and specificity distributions of five ICD-10 algorithms and of the imperfect coroner's report review (CRR) in detecting prescription opioid-related deaths (POD) using one included study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of a total of 1990 studies reviewed, three were included. The reported sensitivity estimates of ICD algorithms for OOD were low (range from 25.0% to 56.8%) for ICD-9 in diagnosing non-fatal OOD-related events and moderate (72% to 89%) for ICD-10 in diagnosing POD. The last included study used ICD-9 for non-fatal and fatal and ICD-10 for fatal OOD-related events and showed high sensitivity (i.e. above 97%). The specificity estimates of ICD algorithms were good to excellent in the three included studies. The misclassification-adjusted ICD-10 algorithm sensitivity estimates for POD from BLCM were consistently higher than reported sensitivity estimates that assumed CRR was perfect.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Evidence on the performance of ICD algorithms in detecting OOD events is scarce, and the absence of bias correction for imperfect tests leads to an underestimation of the sensitivity of ICD code estimates.</p>","PeriodicalId":51407,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Public Health-Revue Canadienne De Sante Publique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Public Health-Revue Canadienne De Sante Publique","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-024-00915-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to summarize validity estimates of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes in identifying opioid overdose (OOD) among patient data from emergency rooms, emergency medical services, inpatient, outpatient, administrative, medical claims, and mortality, and estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the algorithms in the absence of a perfect reference standard.

Methods: We systematically reviewed studies published before December 8, 2023, and identified with Medline and Embase. Studies reporting sufficient details to recreate a 2 × 2 table comparing the ICD algorithms to a reference standard in diagnosing OOD-related events were included. We used Bayesian latent class models (BLCM) to estimate the posterior sensitivity and specificity distributions of five ICD-10 algorithms and of the imperfect coroner's report review (CRR) in detecting prescription opioid-related deaths (POD) using one included study.

Results: Of a total of 1990 studies reviewed, three were included. The reported sensitivity estimates of ICD algorithms for OOD were low (range from 25.0% to 56.8%) for ICD-9 in diagnosing non-fatal OOD-related events and moderate (72% to 89%) for ICD-10 in diagnosing POD. The last included study used ICD-9 for non-fatal and fatal and ICD-10 for fatal OOD-related events and showed high sensitivity (i.e. above 97%). The specificity estimates of ICD algorithms were good to excellent in the three included studies. The misclassification-adjusted ICD-10 algorithm sensitivity estimates for POD from BLCM were consistently higher than reported sensitivity estimates that assumed CRR was perfect.

Conclusion: Evidence on the performance of ICD algorithms in detecting OOD events is scarce, and the absence of bias correction for imperfect tests leads to an underestimation of the sensitivity of ICD code estimates.

用于识别阿片类药物相关用药过量病例的国际疾病分类算法(ICD-9 和 ICD-10)的灵敏度和特异性:在缺乏黄金标准的情况下使用贝叶斯潜类模型进行估算的系统性综述和实例。
研究目的本研究旨在总结国际疾病分类(ICD)代码在识别急诊室、急诊医疗服务、住院病人、门诊病人、行政管理、医疗索赔和死亡率等患者数据中阿片类药物过量(OOD)的有效性估计,并在缺乏完美参考标准的情况下估计算法的灵敏度和特异性:我们系统回顾了 2023 年 12 月 8 日之前发表的研究,并通过 Medline 和 Embase 进行了确认。我们纳入了报告足够详细的研究,这些研究将 ICD 算法与诊断 OOD 相关事件的参考标准进行了 2 × 2 的比较。我们使用贝叶斯潜类模型(BLCM)估算了五种 ICD-10 算法和不完善的验尸官报告审查(CRR)在检测处方阿片类药物相关死亡(POD)方面的后验灵敏度和特异性分布:结果:共审查了 1990 项研究,其中三项被纳入。据报道,ICD 算法对 OOD 的灵敏度估计值较低(范围从 25.0% 到 56.8%),ICD-9 用于诊断非致命的 OOD 相关事件,而 ICD-10 用于诊断 POD 的灵敏度估计值适中(72% 到 89%)。最后一项纳入的研究使用 ICD-9 诊断非致命和致命 OOD 相关事件,使用 ICD-10 诊断致命 OOD 相关事件,结果显示灵敏度较高(即高于 97%)。在三项纳入的研究中,ICD 算法的特异性估计值从良好到优秀不等。经误诊调整的 ICD-10 算法对来自 BLCM 的 POD 的灵敏度估计值始终高于假定 CRR 为完美的报告灵敏度估计值:结论:有关 ICD 算法在检测 OOD 事件方面的性能的证据很少,而且没有对不完善的测试进行偏差校正,导致 ICD 代码估计灵敏度被低估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Public Health-Revue Canadienne De Sante Publique
Canadian Journal of Public Health-Revue Canadienne De Sante Publique PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
4.70%
发文量
128
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journal of Public Health is dedicated to fostering excellence in public health research, scholarship, policy and practice. The aim of the Journal is to advance public health research and practice in Canada and around the world, thus contributing to the improvement of the health of populations and the reduction of health inequalities. CJPH publishes original research and scholarly articles submitted in either English or French that are relevant to population and public health. CJPH is an independent, peer-reviewed journal owned by the Canadian Public Health Association and published by Springer.   Énoncé de mission La Revue canadienne de santé publique se consacre à promouvoir l’excellence dans la recherche, les travaux d’érudition, les politiques et les pratiques de santé publique. Son but est de faire progresser la recherche et les pratiques de santé publique au Canada et dans le monde, contribuant ainsi à l’amélioration de la santé des populations et à la réduction des inégalités de santé. La RCSP publie des articles savants et des travaux inédits, soumis en anglais ou en français, qui sont d’intérêt pour la santé publique et des populations. La RCSP est une revue indépendante avec comité de lecture, propriété de l’Association canadienne de santé publique et publiée par Springer.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信