PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis code for small for gestational age (SGA) recorded in administrative healthcare records using birthweight and gestational age information recorded in electronic medical records. METHODS: We used billing and medical records from women aged 13-55 years who delivered at a tertiary care center in the USA between 2004 and 2011. Information on birthweight, gestational age at birth, and ICD-9-CM code for SGA, 656.5x, was abstracted from the database. Each infant's birthweight percentile for gestational age was calculated on the basis of published US references; infants below the 10th percentile were classified as SGA. The performance characteristics of SGA ICD-9-CM diagnosis code against SGA classification based on birthweight and gestational age were calculated, for all deliveries and by strata of demographic and delivery characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 51 292 singleton live birth deliveries. The prevalence of SGA infants calculated from birthweight and gestational age at birth was higher (13%) than the prevalence based on ICD-9-CM code (2%). Sensitivity of the SGA ICD-9-CM code was 14.2%, specificity was 99.7%, positive predictive value was 86.8%, and negative predictive value was 88.4%. Stratification by demographic and delivery characteristics yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of SGA infants using ICD-9-CM code, 656.5x, from administrative healthcare records has low sensitivity but high specificity; the accuracy did not differ across demographic and delivery characteristics. Thus, although this source of information would underestimate the prevalence of SGA, it could produce valid relative risk estimates.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis code for small for gestational age (SGA) recorded in administrative healthcare records using birthweight and gestational age information recorded in electronic medical records. METHODS: We used billing and medical records from women aged 13-55 years who delivered at a tertiary care center in the USA between 2004 and 2011. Information on birthweight, gestational age at birth, and ICD-9-CM code for SGA, 656.5x, was abstracted from the database. Each infant's birthweight percentile for gestational age was calculated on the basis of published US references; infants below the 10th percentile were classified as SGA. The performance characteristics of SGA ICD-9-CM diagnosis code against SGA classification based on birthweight and gestational age were calculated, for all deliveries and by strata of demographic and delivery characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 51 292 singleton live birth deliveries. The prevalence of SGA infants calculated from birthweight and gestational age at birth was higher (13%) than the prevalence based on ICD-9-CM code (2%). Sensitivity of the SGA ICD-9-CM code was 14.2%, specificity was 99.7%, positive predictive value was 86.8%, and negative predictive value was 88.4%. Stratification by demographic and delivery characteristics yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of SGA infants using ICD-9-CM code, 656.5x, from administrative healthcare records has low sensitivity but high specificity; the accuracy did not differ across demographic and delivery characteristics. Thus, although this source of information would underestimate the prevalence of SGA, it could produce valid relative risk estimates.
Authors: J M Thompson; P M Clark; E Robinson; D M Becroft; N S Pattison; N Glavish; J E Pryor; C J Wild; K Rees; E A Mitchell Journal: J Paediatr Child Health Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 1.954
Authors: Sonia Hernández-Díaz; Robert Mittendorf; Caitlin R Smith; W Allen Hauser; Mark Yerby; Lewis B Holmes Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jennifer Y Chen; Heather J Ribaudo; Sajini Souda; Natasha Parekh; Anthony Ogwu; Shahin Lockman; Kathleen Powis; Scott Dryden-Peterson; Tracy Creek; William Jimbo; Tebogo Madidimalo; Joseph Makhema; Max Essex; Roger L Shapiro Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: F Chiaffarino; F Parazzini; L Chatenoud; E Ricci; F Sandretti; S Cipriani; D Caserta; L Fedele Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2006-02-22 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Loreen Straub; Brian T Bateman; Sonia Hernandez-Diaz; Cassandra York; Yanmin Zhu; Elizabeth A Suarez; Barry Lester; Lyndon Gonzalez; Ryan Hanson; Clara Hildebrandt; Joseph Homsi; Daniel Kang; Ken W K Lee; Zachary Lee; Linda Li; Mckenna Longacre; Nidhi Shah; Natalie Tukan; Frances Wallace; Christina Williams; Salim Zerriny; Helen Mogun; Krista F Huybrechts Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2021-10-15 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Susan B Brogly; Sonia Hernández-Diaz; Emily Regan; Ela Fadli; Kristen A Hahn; Martha M Werler Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Jennifer J Yland; Yu-Han Chiu; Paolo Rinaudo; John Hsu; Miguel A Hernán; Sonia Hernández-Díaz Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Daina B Esposito; Brian Bateman; Martha Werler; Loreen Straub; Helen Mogun; Sonia Hernandez-Diaz; Krista Huybrechts Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 5.363
Authors: Giovanni Corrao; Federico Rea; Matteo Franchi; Benedetta Beccalli; Anna Locatelli; Anna Cantarutti Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-05 Impact factor: 3.390