Frances E Likis1, Nila A Sathe2, Ryan Carnahan3, Melissa L McPheeters4. 1. Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Suite 600, 2525 West End Avenue, Nashville, TN, 37203-1738, USA; Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Suite 600, 2525 West End Avenue, Nashville, TN, 37203-1738, USA. Electronic address: frances.likis@vanderbilt.edu. 2. Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Suite 600, 2525 West End Avenue, Nashville, TN, 37203-1738, USA. Electronic address: nila.sathe@vanderbilt.edu. 3. Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa College of Public Health, S437 CPHB University of Iowa, 105 River Street, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA. Electronic address: ryan-carnahan@uiowa.edu. 4. Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Suite 600, 2525 West End Avenue, Nashville, TN, 37203-1738, USA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Suite 600, 2525 West End Avenue, Nashville, TN, 37203-1738, USA. Electronic address: melissa.mcpheeters@vanderbilt.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify and assess diagnosis, procedure and pharmacy dispensing codes used to identify stillbirths and spontaneous abortion in administrative and claims databases from the United States or Canada. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE database from 1991 to September 2012 using controlled vocabulary and key terms related to stillbirth or spontaneous abortion. We also searched the reference lists of included studies. Two investigators independently assessed the full text of studies against pre-determined inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently extracted data regarding participant and algorithm characteristics and assessed each study's methodological rigor using a pre-defined approach. RESULTS: Ten publications addressing stillbirth and four addressing spontaneous abortion met our inclusion criteria. The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes most commonly used in algorithms for stillbirth were those for intrauterine death (656.4) and stillborn outcomes of delivery (V27.1, V27.3-V27.4, and V27.6-V27.7). Papers identifying spontaneous abortion used codes for missed abortion and spontaneous abortion: 632, 634.x, as well as V27.0-V27.7. Only two studies identifying stillbirth reported validation of algorithms. The overall positive predictive value of the algorithms was high (99%-100%), and one study reported an algorithm with 86% sensitivity. However, the predictive value of individual codes was not assessed and study populations were limited to specific geographic areas. CONCLUSIONS: Additional validation studies with a nationally representative sample are needed to confirm the optimal algorithm to identify stillbirths or spontaneous abortion in administrative and claims databases.'
PURPOSE: To identify and assess diagnosis, procedure and pharmacy dispensing codes used to identify stillbirths and spontaneous abortion in administrative and claims databases from the United States or Canada. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE database from 1991 to September 2012 using controlled vocabulary and key terms related to stillbirth or spontaneous abortion. We also searched the reference lists of included studies. Two investigators independently assessed the full text of studies against pre-determined inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently extracted data regarding participant and algorithm characteristics and assessed each study's methodological rigor using a pre-defined approach. RESULTS: Ten publications addressing stillbirth and four addressing spontaneous abortion met our inclusion criteria. The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes most commonly used in algorithms for stillbirth were those for intrauterine death (656.4) and stillborn outcomes of delivery (V27.1, V27.3-V27.4, and V27.6-V27.7). Papers identifying spontaneous abortion used codes for missed abortion and spontaneous abortion: 632, 634.x, as well as V27.0-V27.7. Only two studies identifying stillbirth reported validation of algorithms. The overall positive predictive value of the algorithms was high (99%-100%), and one study reported an algorithm with 86% sensitivity. However, the predictive value of individual codes was not assessed and study populations were limited to specific geographic areas. CONCLUSIONS: Additional validation studies with a nationally representative sample are needed to confirm the optimal algorithm to identify stillbirths or spontaneous abortion in administrative and claims databases.'
Authors: Basilio Pintaudi; Giuseppe Lucisano; Fabio Pellegrini; Antonio D'Ettorre; Vito Lepore; Giorgia De Berardis; Marco Scardapane; Giacoma Di Vieste; Maria Chiara Rossi; Michele Sacco; Gianni Tognoni; Antonio Nicolucci Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Elizabeth C Ailes; Regina M Simeone; April L Dawson; Emily E Petersen; Suzanne M Gilboa Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2016-11
Authors: Patrick L F Zuber; Allisyn C Moran; Doris Chou; Françoise Renaud; Christine Halleux; Juan Pablo Peña-Rosas; Kavitha Viswanathan; Eve Lackritz; Robert Jakob; Elizabeth Mason; Smaragda Lamprianou; Christine Guillard-Maure Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2018-10-15