BACKGROUND: The use of billing codes (ICD-10) to identify and track cases of gestational and pregestational diabetes during pregnancy is common in clinical quality improvement, research, and surveillance. However, specific diagnoses may be misclassified using ICD-10 codes, potentially biasing estimates. The goal of this study is to provide estimates of validation parameters (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value) for pregestational and gestational diabetes diagnosis using ICD-10 diagnosis codes compared with medical record abstraction at a large public hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. METHODS: This study includes 3,654 deliveries to Emory physicians at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, between 2016 and 2018. We linked information abstracted from the medical record to ICD-10 diagnosis codes for gestational and pregestational diabetes during the delivery hospitalization. Using the medical record as the gold standard, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for each. RESULTS: For both pregestational and gestational diabetes, ICD-10 codes had a high-negative predictive value (>99%, Table 3) and specificity (>99%). For pregestational diabetes, the sensitivity was 85.9% (95% CI = 78.8, 93.0) and positive predictive value 90.8% (95% CI = 85, 97). For gestational diabetes, the sensitivity was 95% (95% CI = 92, 98) and positive predictive value 86% (95% CI = 81, 90). CONCLUSIONS: In a large public hospital, ICD-10 codes accurately identified cases of pregestational and gestational diabetes with low numbers of false positives.
BACKGROUND: The use of billing codes (ICD-10) to identify and track cases of gestational and pregestational diabetes during pregnancy is common in clinical quality improvement, research, and surveillance. However, specific diagnoses may be misclassified using ICD-10 codes, potentially biasing estimates. The goal of this study is to provide estimates of validation parameters (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value) for pregestational and gestational diabetes diagnosis using ICD-10 diagnosis codes compared with medical record abstraction at a large public hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. METHODS: This study includes 3,654 deliveries to Emory physicians at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia, between 2016 and 2018. We linked information abstracted from the medical record to ICD-10 diagnosis codes for gestational and pregestational diabetes during the delivery hospitalization. Using the medical record as the gold standard, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for each. RESULTS: For both pregestational and gestational diabetes, ICD-10 codes had a high-negative predictive value (>99%, Table 3) and specificity (>99%). For pregestational diabetes, the sensitivity was 85.9% (95% CI = 78.8, 93.0) and positive predictive value 90.8% (95% CI = 85, 97). For gestational diabetes, the sensitivity was 95% (95% CI = 92, 98) and positive predictive value 86% (95% CI = 81, 90). CONCLUSIONS: In a large public hospital, ICD-10 codes accurately identified cases of pregestational and gestational diabetes with low numbers of false positives.
Authors: Kartik K Venkatesh; Courtney D Lynch; Camille E Powe; Maged M Costantine; Stephen F Thung; Steven G Gabbe; William A Grobman; Mark B Landon Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: K K Venkatesh; C W Chiang; W C Castillo; A N Battarbee; M Donneyong; L M Harper; M Costantine; G Saade; E F Werner; K A Boggess; M B Landon Journal: BJOG Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 6.531