S L Bowker1, A Savu2, N K Lam3, J A Johnson1, P Kaul2,3. 1. School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 2. Canadian VIGOUR Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. 3. Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Abstract
AIM: To examine, using administrative data, the validity of two algorithms for identifying gestational diabetes mellitus: 1) the current National Diabetes Surveillance System algorithm for excluding gestational diabetes cases and 2) gestational diabetes-specific ICD codes in the delivery-related hospitalization. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all women, aged 18-54 years, residing in Alberta, Canada, with singleton deliveries between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2010. We linked Alberta Perinatal Health Program data on all deliveries to administrative claims data from Alberta Health using the mother's personal health number. For both gestational diabetes algorithms, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and agreement, using gestational diabetes identified in the Alberta Perinatal Health Program as the 'gold standard'. RESULTS: Our study sample consisted of 411 390 deliveries for 273 152 women. The mean (sd) age was 29.1 (5.6) years and 82.3% of the women were white. Crude rates of gestational diabetes were 3.9% (16 215 cases), 1.3% (5189 cases) and 4.0% (16 440 cases) according to the Alberta Perinatal Health Program, National Diabetes Surveillance System and ICD code-based algorithms, respectively. Compared with the Alberta Perinatal Health Program database, the National Diabetes Surveillance System algorithm had a sensitivity of 25% and specificity of 100%, whereas the gestational diabetes-specific ICD code-based algorithm had a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 99%. CONCLUSIONS: The National Diabetes Surveillance System algorithm underestimates the number of gestational diabetes cases. A more valid mechanism to identify gestational diabetes prevalence using health administrative data is the use of gestational diabetes-specific ICD-9/10 codes in the delivery hospitalization.
AIM: To examine, using administrative data, the validity of two algorithms for identifying gestational diabetes mellitus: 1) the current National Diabetes Surveillance System algorithm for excluding gestational diabetes cases and 2) gestational diabetes-specific ICD codes in the delivery-related hospitalization. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all women, aged 18-54 years, residing in Alberta, Canada, with singleton deliveries between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2010. We linked Alberta Perinatal Health Program data on all deliveries to administrative claims data from Alberta Health using the mother's personal health number. For both gestational diabetes algorithms, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and agreement, using gestational diabetes identified in the Alberta Perinatal Health Program as the 'gold standard'. RESULTS: Our study sample consisted of 411 390 deliveries for 273 152 women. The mean (sd) age was 29.1 (5.6) years and 82.3% of the women were white. Crude rates of gestational diabetes were 3.9% (16 215 cases), 1.3% (5189 cases) and 4.0% (16 440 cases) according to the Alberta Perinatal Health Program, National Diabetes Surveillance System and ICD code-based algorithms, respectively. Compared with the Alberta Perinatal Health Program database, the National Diabetes Surveillance System algorithm had a sensitivity of 25% and specificity of 100%, whereas the gestational diabetes-specific ICD code-based algorithm had a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 99%. CONCLUSIONS: The National Diabetes Surveillance System algorithm underestimates the number of gestational diabetes cases. A more valid mechanism to identify gestational diabetes prevalence using health administrative data is the use of gestational diabetes-specific ICD-9/10 codes in the delivery hospitalization.
Authors: Padma Kaul; Samantha L Bowker; Anamaria Savu; Roseanne O Yeung; Lois E Donovan; Edmond A Ryan Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Cynthia J Herrick; Matthew R Keller; Anne M Trolard; Ben P Cooper; Margaret A Olsen; Graham A Colditz Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Cynthia J Herrick; Matthew R Keller; Anne M Trolard; Ben P Cooper; Margaret A Olsen; Graham A Colditz Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 3.295