Evaluation of ICD-9-CM codes for craniofacial microsomia.
Evaluation of ICD-9-CM codes for craniofacial microsomia.
复制标题
颅面微小症的 ICD-9-CM 代码评估。
DOI：
10.1002/bdra.23059
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Heike,CarrieL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Luquetti,DanielaV;Saltzman,BabetteS;Vivaldi,Daniela;Pimenta,LuizA;Hing,AnneV;Cassell,CynthiaH;Starr,JacquelineR;Heike,CarrieL
颅面矮小症（CFM）是一种以小耳畸形和下颌骨发育不全为特征的先天性疾病。医疗保健数据库和出生缺陷监测计划可用于提高CFM的知识。然而，对于这种情况，没有特定的国际疾病分类第9版临床修改（ICD-9-CM）代码，这使得标准化数据收集具有挑战性。我们的目的是评估现有的ICD-9-CM代码的有效性，以确定个人与CFM。METHODS研究样本的合格标准由一个专家小组制定，并匹配到11 ICD-9-CM代码。我们查询了两个颅面中心的出院数据，共确定了12，254名患者有≥1个潜在CFM相关代码。我们回顾了北卡罗来纳州（University of North Carolina，简称北卡罗来纳）的所有（n = 799）医疗记录和西雅图儿童医院（Children's Hospital，简称SCH）的500份随机选择的记录。个体被分为CFM病例或非病例。SCH和DSB分别有32名（6%）和93名（12%）个体符合CFM合格标准。在两个中心，59%的病例和95%的非病例仅分配了一个代码。在这两个中心，最常见的编码是744.23（小耳畸形）、754.0和756.0（非特异性编码），编码744.23的阳性预测值（PPV）>80%，敏感性> 70%。代码754.0的敏感性为3%（PPV <1%），在SCH和36%（PPV = 5%），而756.0的敏感性为38%（PPV = 5%），在SCH和18%（PPV = 26%），在cardios. CONCLUSIONSSThese研究结果表明，需要一个特定的CFM代码，以促进CFM的监测和研究。出生缺陷研究（A部分），2012年。© 2012 Wiley Periodicals，Inc.
BACKGROUNDCraniofacial microsomia (CFM) is a congenital condition characterized by microtia and mandibular underdevelopment. Healthcare databases and birth defects surveillance programs could be used to improve knowledge of CFM. However, no specific International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD‐9‐CM) code exists for this condition, which makes standardized data collection challenging. Our aim was to evaluate the validity of existing ICD‐9‐CM codes to identify individuals with CFM.METHODSStudy sample eligibility criteria were developed by an expert panel and matched to 11 ICD‐9‐CM codes. We queried hospital discharge data from two craniofacial centers and identified a total of 12,254 individuals who had ≥1 potentially CFM‐related code(s). We reviewed all (n = 799) medical records identified at the University of North Carolina (UNC) and 500 randomly selected records at Seattle Children's Hospital (SCH). Individuals were classified as a CFM case or non‐case.RESULTSThirty‐two individuals (6%) at SCH and 93 (12%) at UNC met the CFM eligibility criteria. At both centers, 59% of cases and 95% of non‐cases had only one code assigned. At both centers, the most frequent codes were 744.23 (microtia), 754.0 and 756.0 (nonspecific codes), and the code 744.23 had a positive predictive value (PPV) >80% and sensitivity >70%. The code 754.0 had a sensitivity of 3% (PPV <1%) at SCH and 36% (PPV = 5%) at UNC, whereas 756.0 had a sensitivity of 38% (PPV = 5%) at SCH and 18% (PPV = 26%) at UNC.CONCLUSIONSThese findings suggest the need for a specific CFM code to facilitate CFM surveillance and research. Birth Defects Research (Part A), 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.