使用临床数据库中的管理编码验证瘢痕性脱发的病例查找算法

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 DERMATOLOGY
Mackenzie Johnson, Andrew Strunk, Amit Garg
{"title":"使用临床数据库中的管理编码验证瘢痕性脱发的病例查找算法","authors":"Mackenzie Johnson,&nbsp;Andrew Strunk,&nbsp;Amit Garg","doi":"10.1007/s00403-025-04365-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Small cohort sizes limit the ability to characterize the incidence, prevalence, comorbidities and other health outcomes, and therapeutic strategies for patients with cicatricial alopecias (CA). Establishing larger cohorts of patients within clinical databases for observational study of CAs requires a method to accurately identify cases. We aimed to assess the accuracy of using diagnostic codes to identify female patients with subtypes of primary CAs in an outpatient clinical database. Female patients aged 18 or older with at least one International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code of “other cicatricial alopecia” (L66.8) or “cicatricial alopecia, unspecified (L66.9) applied during a dermatology encounter at Northwell Health between October 1st, 2015, and May 10th, 2024 were randomly sampled. Cases of lichen planopilaris (LPP) were excluded, since a validated case definition for LPP has previously been reported. There were 149 charts reviewed for confirmation of a diagnosis of non-LPP CA. Among confirmed cases of non-LPP CAs, 84.4% identified as African American. Among confirmed CA cases, 82.9%, 13.5% and 3.6% were diagnosed with central centifugal cicatricial alopecia, traction alopecia, and frontal fibrosing alopecia, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) for at least 1 code for L66.8 or L66.9 applied by a dermatologist was 74.5% [111/149 (95% CI 69.2–79.8%)]. The PPV for at least 2 codes of interest, with at least 1 applied by a dermatologist, was 75.0% [57/76 (95% CI 67.8–82.2%)]. Requiring at least 2 codes of interest applied by a dermatologist yielded a PPV of 75% [48/64 (95% CI 67.0–83.0%)]. Restriction to at least 1 code for either L66.8 or L66.9 and no code for LPP (L66.1) resulted in a slightly increased PPV of 80.0% [108/135 (95% CI 74.9–85.1%)]. In conclusion, administrative data can be used with a moderate to high degree of reliability to identify patients with non-LPP CAs in clinical databases.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8203,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Dermatological Research","volume":"317 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of a case finding algorithm for cicatricial alopecias using administrative coding from a clinical database\",\"authors\":\"Mackenzie Johnson,&nbsp;Andrew Strunk,&nbsp;Amit Garg\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00403-025-04365-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Small cohort sizes limit the ability to characterize the incidence, prevalence, comorbidities and other health outcomes, and therapeutic strategies for patients with cicatricial alopecias (CA). Establishing larger cohorts of patients within clinical databases for observational study of CAs requires a method to accurately identify cases. We aimed to assess the accuracy of using diagnostic codes to identify female patients with subtypes of primary CAs in an outpatient clinical database. Female patients aged 18 or older with at least one International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code of “other cicatricial alopecia” (L66.8) or “cicatricial alopecia, unspecified (L66.9) applied during a dermatology encounter at Northwell Health between October 1st, 2015, and May 10th, 2024 were randomly sampled. Cases of lichen planopilaris (LPP) were excluded, since a validated case definition for LPP has previously been reported. There were 149 charts reviewed for confirmation of a diagnosis of non-LPP CA. Among confirmed cases of non-LPP CAs, 84.4% identified as African American. Among confirmed CA cases, 82.9%, 13.5% and 3.6% were diagnosed with central centifugal cicatricial alopecia, traction alopecia, and frontal fibrosing alopecia, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) for at least 1 code for L66.8 or L66.9 applied by a dermatologist was 74.5% [111/149 (95% CI 69.2–79.8%)]. The PPV for at least 2 codes of interest, with at least 1 applied by a dermatologist, was 75.0% [57/76 (95% CI 67.8–82.2%)]. Requiring at least 2 codes of interest applied by a dermatologist yielded a PPV of 75% [48/64 (95% CI 67.0–83.0%)]. Restriction to at least 1 code for either L66.8 or L66.9 and no code for LPP (L66.1) resulted in a slightly increased PPV of 80.0% [108/135 (95% CI 74.9–85.1%)]. In conclusion, administrative data can be used with a moderate to high degree of reliability to identify patients with non-LPP CAs in clinical databases.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8203,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Dermatological Research\",\"volume\":\"317 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Dermatological Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00403-025-04365-x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Dermatological Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00403-025-04365-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

较小的队列规模限制了表征瘢痕性脱发(CA)患者的发病率、患病率、合共病和其他健康结果以及治疗策略的能力。在临床数据库中建立更大的患者队列用于观察性研究,需要一种准确识别病例的方法。我们的目的是评估在门诊临床数据库中使用诊断代码识别原发性ca亚型女性患者的准确性。在2015年10月1日至2024年5月10日期间在诺斯威尔健康医院皮肤科就诊时,随机抽取年龄在18岁及以上的女性患者,并至少有一种国际疾病分类第十版(ICD-10)编码为“其他瘢痕性脱发”(L66.8)或“瘢痕性脱发,未指明(L66.9)”。本研究排除了扁平苔藓(LPP)的病例,因为先前已经报道了LPP的有效病例定义。有149张图表被审查以确认非lpp CA的诊断。在确诊的非lpp CA病例中,84.4%被确定为非洲裔美国人。CA确诊病例中,82.9%、13.5%和3.6%分别诊断为中央离心瘢痕性脱发、牵引性脱发和额部纤维化性脱发。皮肤科医生应用L66.8或L66.9至少1个代码的阳性预测值(PPV)为74.5% [111/149 (95% CI 69.2-79.8%)]。至少2个感兴趣编码,至少1个由皮肤科医生应用的PPV为75.0% [57/76 (95% CI 67.8-82.2%)]。要求皮肤科医生应用至少2个感兴趣代码,PPV为75% [48/64 (95% CI 67.0-83.0%)]。限制至少1个L66.8或L66.9的编码,并且没有LPP (L66.1)的编码,导致PPV略微增加80.0% [108/135 (95% CI 74.9-85.1%)]。总之,在临床数据库中,行政数据可以以中等到高度的可靠性用于识别非lpp CAs患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validation of a case finding algorithm for cicatricial alopecias using administrative coding from a clinical database

Small cohort sizes limit the ability to characterize the incidence, prevalence, comorbidities and other health outcomes, and therapeutic strategies for patients with cicatricial alopecias (CA). Establishing larger cohorts of patients within clinical databases for observational study of CAs requires a method to accurately identify cases. We aimed to assess the accuracy of using diagnostic codes to identify female patients with subtypes of primary CAs in an outpatient clinical database. Female patients aged 18 or older with at least one International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code of “other cicatricial alopecia” (L66.8) or “cicatricial alopecia, unspecified (L66.9) applied during a dermatology encounter at Northwell Health between October 1st, 2015, and May 10th, 2024 were randomly sampled. Cases of lichen planopilaris (LPP) were excluded, since a validated case definition for LPP has previously been reported. There were 149 charts reviewed for confirmation of a diagnosis of non-LPP CA. Among confirmed cases of non-LPP CAs, 84.4% identified as African American. Among confirmed CA cases, 82.9%, 13.5% and 3.6% were diagnosed with central centifugal cicatricial alopecia, traction alopecia, and frontal fibrosing alopecia, respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) for at least 1 code for L66.8 or L66.9 applied by a dermatologist was 74.5% [111/149 (95% CI 69.2–79.8%)]. The PPV for at least 2 codes of interest, with at least 1 applied by a dermatologist, was 75.0% [57/76 (95% CI 67.8–82.2%)]. Requiring at least 2 codes of interest applied by a dermatologist yielded a PPV of 75% [48/64 (95% CI 67.0–83.0%)]. Restriction to at least 1 code for either L66.8 or L66.9 and no code for LPP (L66.1) resulted in a slightly increased PPV of 80.0% [108/135 (95% CI 74.9–85.1%)]. In conclusion, administrative data can be used with a moderate to high degree of reliability to identify patients with non-LPP CAs in clinical databases.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.30%
发文量
30
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Archives of Dermatological Research is a highly rated international journal that publishes original contributions in the field of experimental dermatology, including papers on biochemistry, morphology and immunology of the skin. The journal is among the few not related to dermatological associations or belonging to respective societies which guarantees complete independence. This English-language journal also offers a platform for review articles in areas of interest for dermatologists and for publication of innovative clinical trials.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信