BACKGROUND: Mapping of drug indications to ICD-10 was undertaken in Korea by a public and a private institution for their own purposes. A different mapping approach was used by each institution, which presented a good opportunity to compare the validity of the two approaches. OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to compare the validity of a direct mapping approach and an indirect terminology based mapping approach of drug indications against the gold standard drawn from the results of the two mapping processes. METHODS: Three hundred and seventy-five cardiovascular reference drugs were selected from all listed cardiovascular drugs for the study. In the direct approach, two experienced nurse coders mapped the free text indications directly to ICD-10. In the indirect terminology based approach, the indications were extracted and coded in the Korean Standard Terminology of Medicine. These terminology coded indications were then manually mapped to ICD-10. The results of the two approaches were compared to the gold standard. A kappa statistic was calculated to see the compatibility of both mapping approaches. Recall, precision and F1 score of each mapping approach were calculated and analyzed using a paired t-test. RESULTS: The mean number of indications for the study drugs was 5.42. The mean number of ICD-10 codes that matched in direct approach was 46.32 and that of indirect terminology based approach was 56.94. The agreement of the mapping results between the two approaches were poor (kappa = 0.19). The indirect terminology based approach showed higher recall (86.78%) than direct approach (p < 0.001). However, there was no difference in precision and F1 score between the two approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Considering no differences in the F1 scores, both approaches may be used in practice for mapping drug indications to ICD-10. However, in terms of consistency, time and manpower, better results are expected from the indirect terminology based approach.
BACKGROUND: Mapping of drug indications to ICD-10 was undertaken in Korea by a public and a private institution for their own purposes. A different mapping approach was used by each institution, which presented a good opportunity to compare the validity of the two approaches. OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to compare the validity of a direct mapping approach and an indirect terminology based mapping approach of drug indications against the gold standard drawn from the results of the two mapping processes. METHODS: Three hundred and seventy-five cardiovascular reference drugs were selected from all listed cardiovascular drugs for the study. In the direct approach, two experienced nurse coders mapped the free text indications directly to ICD-10. In the indirect terminology based approach, the indications were extracted and coded in the Korean Standard Terminology of Medicine. These terminology coded indications were then manually mapped to ICD-10. The results of the two approaches were compared to the gold standard. A kappa statistic was calculated to see the compatibility of both mapping approaches. Recall, precision and F1 score of each mapping approach were calculated and analyzed using a paired t-test. RESULTS: The mean number of indications for the study drugs was 5.42. The mean number of ICD-10 codes that matched in direct approach was 46.32 and that of indirect terminology based approach was 56.94. The agreement of the mapping results between the two approaches were poor (kappa = 0.19). The indirect terminology based approach showed higher recall (86.78%) than direct approach (p < 0.001). However, there was no difference in precision and F1 score between the two approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Considering no differences in the F1 scores, both approaches may be used in practice for mapping drug indications to ICD-10. However, in terms of consistency, time and manpower, better results are expected from the indirect terminology based approach.
Entities:
Keywords:
Drug indication database; International Classification of Diseases (ICD); semantic mapping
Authors: Anna V Medem; Hanna M Seidling; Hans-Georg Eichler; Jens Kaltschmidt; Michael Metzner; Carina M Hubert; David Czock; Walter E Haefeli Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 2.953