Sydney A Jones1, Rebecca F Gottesman1, Eyal Shahar1, Lisa Wruck1, Wayne D Rosamond1. 1. From the Department of Epidemiology (S.A.J., W.D.R.) and Department of Biostatistics (L.W.), Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD (R.F.G.); and Epidemiology and Biostatistics Division, the University of Arizona College of Public Health, Tucson (E.S.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Characterizing International Classification of Disease 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code validity is essential given widespread use of hospital discharge databases in research. Using the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study, we estimated the accuracy of ICD-9-CM stroke codes. METHODS: Hospitalizations with ICD-9-CM codes 430 to 438 or stroke keywords in the discharge summary were abstracted for ARIC cohort members (1987-2010). A computer algorithm and physician reviewer classified definite and probable ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage. Using ARIC classification as a gold standard, we calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity of ICD-9-CM codes grouped according to the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) 2013 categories and an alternative code grouping for comparison. RESULTS: Thirty-three percent of 4260 hospitalizations were validated as strokes (1251 ischemic, 120 intracerebral hemorrhage, 46 subarachnoid hemorrhage). The AHA/ASA code groups had PPV 76% and 68% sensitivity compared with PPV 72% and 83% sensitivity for the alternative code groups. The PPV of the AHA/ASA code group for ischemic stroke was slightly higher among blacks, individuals <65 years, and at teaching hospitals. Sensitivity was higher among older individuals and increased over time. The PPV of the AHA/ASA code group for intracerebral hemorrhage was higher among blacks, women, and younger individuals. PPV and sensitivity varied across study sites. CONCLUSIONS: A new AHA/ASA discharge code grouping to identify stroke had similar PPV and lower sensitivity compared with an alternative code grouping. Accuracy varied by patient characteristics and study sites.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Characterizing International Classification of Disease 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code validity is essential given widespread use of hospital discharge databases in research. Using the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study, we estimated the accuracy of ICD-9-CM stroke codes. METHODS: Hospitalizations with ICD-9-CM codes 430 to 438 or stroke keywords in the discharge summary were abstracted for ARIC cohort members (1987-2010). A computer algorithm and physician reviewer classified definite and probable ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage. Using ARIC classification as a gold standard, we calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity of ICD-9-CM codes grouped according to the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) 2013 categories and an alternative code grouping for comparison. RESULTS: Thirty-three percent of 4260 hospitalizations were validated as strokes (1251 ischemic, 120 intracerebral hemorrhage, 46 subarachnoid hemorrhage). The AHA/ASA code groups had PPV 76% and 68% sensitivity compared with PPV 72% and 83% sensitivity for the alternative code groups. The PPV of the AHA/ASA code group for ischemic stroke was slightly higher among blacks, individuals <65 years, and at teaching hospitals. Sensitivity was higher among older individuals and increased over time. The PPV of the AHA/ASA code group for intracerebral hemorrhage was higher among blacks, women, and younger individuals. PPV and sensitivity varied across study sites. CONCLUSIONS: A new AHA/ASA discharge code grouping to identify stroke had similar PPV and lower sensitivity compared with an alternative code grouping. Accuracy varied by patient characteristics and study sites.
Authors: Dean M Reker; Amy K Rosen; Helen Hoenig; Dan R Berlowitz; Judith Laughlin; Leigh Anderson; Clifford R Marshall; Maude Rittman Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Nikolaos Yiannakoulias; Lawrence W Svenson; Michael D Hill; Donald P Schopflocher; Brian H Rowe; Robert C James; Andreas T Wielgosz; Thomas W Noseworthy Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2003-10-06 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Søren P Johnsen; Kim Overvad; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Anne Tjønneland; Steen E Husted Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Emily L Johnson; Gregory L Krauss; Keenan A Walker; Jason Brandt; Anna Kucharska-Newton; Thomas H Mosley; Sevil Yasar; Rebecca F Gottesman Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Bernhard Haring; Jeffrey R Misialek; Casey M Rebholz; Natalia Petruski-Ivleva; Rebecca F Gottesman; Thomas H Mosley; Alvaro Alonso Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Rohit B Sangal; Samah Fodeh; Andrew Taylor; Craig Rothenberg; Emily B Finn; Kevin Sheth; Charles Matouk; Andrew Ulrich; Vivek Parwani; John Sather; Arjun Venkatesh Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Emily L Johnson; Gregory L Krauss; Alexandra K Lee; Andrea L C Schneider; Jennifer L Dearborn; Anna M Kucharska-Newton; Juebin Huang; Alvaro Alonso; Rebecca F Gottesman Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Gloria Too; Timothy Wen; Amelia K Boehme; Eliza C Miller; Lisa R Leffert; Frank J Attenello; William J Mack; Mary E DʼAlton; Alexander M Friedman Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: James F Colbert; Richard J Traystman; Sharon N Poisson; Paco S Herson; Adit A Ginde Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 2.136