Small for Gestational Age Coded Diagnoses in Aotearoa New Zealand's Administrative Health Datasets: A Validation Study

IF 2.1 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Mei-Ling Blank, Sarah Donald, Lianne Parkin
{"title":"Small for Gestational Age Coded Diagnoses in Aotearoa New Zealand's Administrative Health Datasets: A Validation Study","authors":"Mei-Ling Blank,&nbsp;Sarah Donald,&nbsp;Lianne Parkin","doi":"10.1002/hsr2.70610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background and Aims</h3>\n \n <p>Inaccurate coding of small for gestational age (SGA) infants in routinely collected health data has implications for research based on those data. We aimed to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of coded SGA diagnoses in New Zealand's routinely collected hospitalisation and mortality data, and determine whether sensitivity and specificity varied by infant, pregnancy, and maternal characteristics.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We estimated birthweight centiles of live and stillborn infants delivered in New Zealand between 2005 and 2020 using the Fenton Population Reference Calculator and the GROW Customised Bulk Centile Calculator (New Zealand version); values of the relevant variables (including gestational age, birthweight, infant sex, and others) were sourced from routinely collected national health data. We compared the SGA status derived from the calculators with coded SGA diagnoses (ICD-10-AM P051) in hospitalisation and mortality data. We estimated sensitivity and specificity ratios comparing coded diagnoses with each of the birthweight calculators using a generalised linear model, adjusting for infant, pregnancy, and maternal characteristics.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>This analysis included 887,871 infants, with 15,850 (1.8%) having a coded SGA diagnosis. By contrast, the number and proportion of babies classified as SGA using the Fenton and GROW calculators were 80,541 (9.1%) and 138,866 (15.6%), respectively. Overall, compared with the Fenton calculator, the sensitivity of coded SGA diagnoses was 13.1% (specificity 99.3%). Compared with the GROW calculator, the sensitivity was 9.8% (specificity 99.7%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>In New Zealand, population-level research involving SGA diagnoses should derive birthweight centiles using an appropriate calculator instead of using ICD-10-AM coded diagnoses.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36518,"journal":{"name":"Health Science Reports","volume":"8 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hsr2.70610","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Science Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hsr2.70610","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Aims

Inaccurate coding of small for gestational age (SGA) infants in routinely collected health data has implications for research based on those data. We aimed to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of coded SGA diagnoses in New Zealand's routinely collected hospitalisation and mortality data, and determine whether sensitivity and specificity varied by infant, pregnancy, and maternal characteristics.

Methods

We estimated birthweight centiles of live and stillborn infants delivered in New Zealand between 2005 and 2020 using the Fenton Population Reference Calculator and the GROW Customised Bulk Centile Calculator (New Zealand version); values of the relevant variables (including gestational age, birthweight, infant sex, and others) were sourced from routinely collected national health data. We compared the SGA status derived from the calculators with coded SGA diagnoses (ICD-10-AM P051) in hospitalisation and mortality data. We estimated sensitivity and specificity ratios comparing coded diagnoses with each of the birthweight calculators using a generalised linear model, adjusting for infant, pregnancy, and maternal characteristics.

Results

This analysis included 887,871 infants, with 15,850 (1.8%) having a coded SGA diagnosis. By contrast, the number and proportion of babies classified as SGA using the Fenton and GROW calculators were 80,541 (9.1%) and 138,866 (15.6%), respectively. Overall, compared with the Fenton calculator, the sensitivity of coded SGA diagnoses was 13.1% (specificity 99.3%). Compared with the GROW calculator, the sensitivity was 9.8% (specificity 99.7%).

Conclusion

In New Zealand, population-level research involving SGA diagnoses should derive birthweight centiles using an appropriate calculator instead of using ICD-10-AM coded diagnoses.

小胎龄编码诊断在新西兰行政卫生数据集:验证研究
背景和目的在常规收集的健康数据中对小于胎龄(SGA)婴儿的不准确编码对基于这些数据的研究具有影响。我们的目的是估计新西兰常规收集的住院和死亡率数据中编码SGA诊断的敏感性和特异性,并确定敏感性和特异性是否因婴儿、妊娠和产妇特征而异。方法:我们使用Fenton人口参考计算器和GROW定制体积百分位数计算器(新西兰版)估计2005年至2020年间在新西兰出生的活产和死产婴儿的出生体重百分位数;相关变量(包括胎龄、出生体重、婴儿性别等)的值来源于常规收集的国家卫生数据。我们比较了由计算器得出的SGA状态与住院和死亡数据中的编码SGA诊断(ICD-10-AM P051)。我们使用广义线性模型,将编码诊断与每个出生体重计算器进行比较,并根据婴儿、妊娠和母亲的特征进行调整,估计敏感性和特异性比。结果该分析包括887,871名婴儿,其中15,850名(1.8%)有编码SGA诊断。相比之下,使用Fenton和GROW计算器分类为SGA的婴儿数量和比例分别为80,541(9.1%)和138,866(15.6%)。总体而言,与Fenton计算器相比,编码SGA诊断的敏感性为13.1%(特异性为99.3%)。与GROW计算器比较,灵敏度为9.8%,特异度为99.7%。结论在新西兰,涉及SGA诊断的人口水平研究应使用适当的计算器而不是使用ICD-10-AM编码诊断来获得出生体重百分位数。
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
Health Science Reports
Health Science Reports Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
458
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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