Literature DB >> 25575086

Validation of an administrative coding algorithm for classifying surgical indication and operative features of spine surgery.

Alexander Kazberouk1, Brook I Martin, Jennifer P Stevens, Kevin J McGuire.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective review of medical records and administrative data.
OBJECTIVE: Validate a claims-based algorithm for classifying surgical indication and operative features in lumbar surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Administrative data are valuable to study rates, safety, outcomes, and costs in spine surgery. Previous research evaluates outcomes by procedure, not indications and operative features. One previous study validated a coding algorithm for classifying surgical indication. Few studies examined claims data for classifying patients by operative features.
METHODS: Patients undergoing lumbar decompression or fusion at a single institution in 2009 for back pain, herniated disc, stenosis, spondylolisthesis, or scoliosis were included. Sensitivity and specificity of a claims-based algorithm for indication and operative features were examined versus medical record abstraction.
RESULTS: A total of 477 patients, including 246 (52%) undergoing fusion and 231 (48%) undergoing decompression were included in this study. Sensitivity of the claims-based coding algorithm for classifying the indication for the procedure was 71.9% for degenerative disc disease, 81.9% for disc herniation, 32.7% for spinal stenosis, 90.4% for degenerative spondylolisthesis, and 93.8% for scoliosis. Specificity was 87.9% for degenerative disc, 85.6% for disc herniation, 90.7% for spinal stenosis, 95.0% for degenerative spondylolisthesis, and 97.3% for scoliosis. Sensitivity and specificity of claims data for identifying the type of procedure for fusion cases was 97.6% and 99.1%, respectively. Sensitivity of claims data for characterizing key operative features was 81.7%, 96.4%, and 53.0% for use of instrumentation, combined (anterior and posterior) surgical approach, and 3 or more disc levels fused, respectively. Specificity was 57.1% for instrumentation, 94.5% for combined approaches, and 71.9% for 3 or more disc levels fused.
CONCLUSION: Claims data accurately reflected certain diagnoses and type of procedures, but were less accurate at characterizing operative features other than the surgical approach. This study highlights both the potential and current limitations of claims-based analysis for spine surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25575086     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000682

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  9 in total

1.  Bone Morphogenetic Protein Use and Cancer Risk Among Patients Undergoing Lumbar Arthrodesis: A Case-Cohort Study Using the SEER-Medicare Database.

Authors:  Daniel C Beachler; Elizabeth L Yanik; Brook I Martin; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Sohail K Mirza; Richard A Deyo; Eric A Engels
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2016-07-06       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Accuracy and agreement of national spine register data for 474 patients compared to corresponding electronic patient records.

Authors:  Ole Kristian Alhaug; Simran Kaur; Filip Dolatowski; Milada Cvancarova Småstuen; Tore K Solberg; Greger Lønne
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Chiari malformation Type I surgery in pediatric patients. Part 1: validation of an ICD-9-CM code search algorithm.

Authors:  Travis R Ladner; Jacob K Greenberg; Nicole Guerrero; Margaret A Olsen; Chevis N Shannon; Chester K Yarbrough; Jay F Piccirillo; Richard C E Anderson; Neil A Feldstein; John C Wellons; Matthew D Smyth; Tae Sung Park; David D Limbrick
Journal:  J Neurosurg Pediatr       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 2.375

4.  Providing Epidemiological Data in Lumbar Spine Imaging Reports Did Not Affect Subsequent Utilization of Spine Procedures: Secondary Outcomes from a Stepped-Wedge Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Pradeep Suri; Eric N Meier; Laura S Gold; Zachary A Marcum; Sandra K Johnston; Kathryn T James; Brian W Bresnahan; Michael O'Reilly; Judith A Turner; David F Kallmes; Karen J Sherman; Richard A Deyo; Patrick H Luetmer; Andrew L Avins; Brent Griffith; Patrick J Heagerty; Sean D Rundell; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Janna L Friedly
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 3.750

5.  Validation of an International Classification of Disease, 10th revision coding adaptation for the Charlson Comorbidity Index in United States healthcare claims data.

Authors:  Julie Beyrer; Janna Manjelievskaia; Machaon Bonafede; Gregory Lenhart; Sandra Nolot; Diane Haldane; Joseph Johnston
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 2.890

6.  Validation of Using Claims Data to Measure Safety of Lumbar Fusion Surgery.

Authors:  Neel K Patel; Rachel A Moses; Brook I Martin; Jon D Lurie; Sohail K Mirza
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2017-05-01       Impact factor: 3.241

7.  Timing of Lumbar Spinal Fusion Affects Total Hip Arthroplasty Outcomes.

Authors:  Abiram Bala; Deepak V Chona; Derek F Amanatullah; Serena S Hu; Kirkham B Wood; Todd F Alamin; Ivan Cheng
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev       Date:  2019-11-04

8.  Effects of a Commercial Insurance Policy Restriction on Lumbar Fusion in North Carolina and the Implications for National Adoption.

Authors:  Brook I Martin; Richard A Deyo; Jon D Lurie; Timothy S Carey; Anna N A Tosteson; Sohail K Mirza
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.241

9.  Validation of an electronic coding algorithm to identify the primary indication of orthopedic surgeries from administrative data.

Authors:  John C Giardina; Thomas Cha; Steven J Atlas; Michael J Barry; Andrew A Freiberg; Lauren Leavitt; Felisha Marques; Karen Sepucha
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 2.796

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.