BACKGROUND: Administrative data are used in clinical research, but the validity of ICD-9 codes to identify cirrhotic patients has not been well established. GOALS: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ICD-9 codes for cirrhosis in clinical practice. STUDY: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients from a safety-net hospital between 2008 and 2011. Patients were initially identified using ICD-9 codes for cirrhosis or a resultant complication. The gold-standard for diagnosis of cirrhosis was histology and/or imaging based on medical record review. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values for each ICD-9 code were calculated. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by the c-statistic using receiver operator characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: We identified 2893 patients with an ICD-9 code for cirrhosis, of whom 50.2% had 1 ICD-9 code, 20.3% had 2 different codes, and 29.5% had 3 or more codes. Cirrhosis was confirmed in 44.0% of patients with 1 ICD-9 code, 82.6% with 2 codes, and 95.7% of those with at least 3 codes. Ascites had a significantly lower positive predictive values for cirrhosis than other ICD-9 codes (P<0.001). The optimal combination of ICD-9 codes to identify cirrhotic patients included all codes except that of ascites, with a c-statistic of 0.71 in our derivation cohort. The sensitivity of this combination was confirmed to be 98% in a validation cohort of 285 patients with known cirrhosis. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative data can identify patients with cirrhosis with high accuracy, although ascites has a significantly lower positive predictive value than other ICD-9 codes.
BACKGROUND: Administrative data are used in clinical research, but the validity of ICD-9 codes to identify cirrhotic patients has not been well established. GOALS: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ICD-9 codes for cirrhosis in clinical practice. STUDY: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients from a safety-net hospital between 2008 and 2011. Patients were initially identified using ICD-9 codes for cirrhosis or a resultant complication. The gold-standard for diagnosis of cirrhosis was histology and/or imaging based on medical record review. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values for each ICD-9 code were calculated. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by the c-statistic using receiver operator characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: We identified 2893 patients with an ICD-9 code for cirrhosis, of whom 50.2% had 1 ICD-9 code, 20.3% had 2 different codes, and 29.5% had 3 or more codes. Cirrhosis was confirmed in 44.0% of patients with 1 ICD-9 code, 82.6% with 2 codes, and 95.7% of those with at least 3 codes. Ascites had a significantly lower positive predictive values for cirrhosis than other ICD-9 codes (P<0.001). The optimal combination of ICD-9 codes to identify cirrhotic patients included all codes except that of ascites, with a c-statistic of 0.71 in our derivation cohort. The sensitivity of this combination was confirmed to be 98% in a validation cohort of 285 patients with known cirrhosis. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative data can identify patients with cirrhosis with high accuracy, although ascites has a significantly lower positive predictive value than other ICD-9 codes.
Authors: J R Kramer; J A Davila; E D Miller; P Richardson; T P Giordano; H B El-Serag Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2007-11-08 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: David Goldberg; Ivo C Ditah; Kia Saeian; Mona Lalehzari; Andrew Aronsohn; Emmanuel C Gorospe; Michael Charlton Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Eric S Orman; Anthony Perkins; Marwan Ghabril; Babar A Khan; Naga Chalasani; Malaz A Boustani Journal: Metab Brain Dis Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 3.584
Authors: Jejo D Koola; Sam B Ho; Aize Cao; Guanhua Chen; Amy M Perkins; Sharon E Davis; Michael E Matheny Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Amit G Singal; Jasmin A Tiro; Caitlin C Murphy; Jorge A Marrero; Katharine McCallister; Hannah Fullington; Caroline Mejias; Akbar K Waljee; Wendy Pechero Bishop; Noel O Santini; Ethan A Halm Journal: Hepatology Date: 2018-12-14 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Purva Gopal; Adam C Yopp; Akbar K Waljee; Jason Chiang; Mahendra Nehra; Pragathi Kandunoori; Amit G Singal Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-10-02 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: John H Holden; Hani Shamseddeen; Amy W Johnson; Benjamin Byriel; Kavitha Subramoney; Yao-Wen Cheng; Akira Saito; Marwan Ghabril; Naga Chalasani; Greg A Sachs; Eric S Orman Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 2.947