Suppr超能文献

验证使用国际疾病分类第九版(ICD-9)编码映射生成损伤严重程度评分的方法。

Validating the Use of ICD-9 Code Mapping to Generate Injury Severity Scores.

作者信息

Fleischman Ross J, Mann N Clay, Dai Mengtao, Holmes James F, Wang N Ewen, Haukoos Jason, Hsia Renee Y, Rea Thomas, Newgard Craig D

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, California (Dr Fleischman); Dept. of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City (Drs Mann and Dai); Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento (Dr Holmes); Stanford University Medical School, Stanford, California (Dr Wang); Department of Emergency Medicine, Denver Health Medical Center, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver (Dr Haukoos); Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora (Dr Haukoos); Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California San Francisco (Dr Hsia); Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle (Dr Rea); and Department of Emergency Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland (Dr Newgard).

出版信息

J Trauma Nurs. 2017 Jan/Feb;24(1):4-14. doi: 10.1097/JTN.0000000000000255.

Abstract

The Injury Severity Score (ISS) is a measure of injury severity widely used for research and quality assurance in trauma. Calculation of ISS requires chart abstraction, so it is often unavailable for patients cared for in nontrauma centers. Whether ISS can be accurately calculated from International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes remains unclear. Our objective was to compare ISS derived from ICD-9 codes with those coded by trauma registrars. This was a retrospective study of patients entered into 9 U.S. trauma registries from January 2006 through December 2008. Two computer programs, ICDPIC and ICDMAP, were used to derive ISS from the ICD-9 codes in the registries. We compared derived ISS with ISS hand-coded by trained coders. There were 24,804 cases with a mortality rate of 3.9%. The median ISS derived by both ICDPIC (ISS-ICDPIC) and ICDMAP (ISS-ICDMAP) was 8 (interquartile range [IQR] = 4-13). The median ISS in the registry (ISS-registry) was 9 (IQR = 4-14). The median difference between either of the derived scores and ISS-registry was zero. However, the mean ISS derived by ICD-9 code mapping was lower than the hand-coded ISS in the registries (1.7 lower for ICDPIC, 95% CI [1.7, 1.8], Bland-Altman limits of agreement = -10.5 to 13.9; 1.8 lower for ICDMAP, 95% CI [1.7, 1.9], limits of agreement = -9.6 to 13.3). ICD-9-derived ISS slightly underestimated ISS compared with hand-coded scores. The 2 methods showed moderate to substantial agreement. Although hand-coded scores should be used when possible, ICD-9-derived scores may be useful in quality assurance and research when hand-coded scores are unavailable.

摘要

损伤严重度评分(ISS)是一种广泛用于创伤研究和质量保证的损伤严重程度衡量指标。ISS的计算需要查阅病历,因此在非创伤中心接受治疗的患者通常无法获得该评分。ISS能否从《国际疾病分类,第九版》(ICD - 9)编码中准确计算出来仍不明确。我们的目的是比较从ICD - 9编码得出的ISS与创伤登记员编码的ISS。这是一项对2006年1月至2008年12月录入9个美国创伤登记处的患者进行的回顾性研究。使用两个计算机程序ICDPIC和ICDMAP从登记处的ICD - 9编码中得出ISS。我们将得出的ISS与经过培训的编码员手工编码的ISS进行了比较。共有24,804例病例,死亡率为3.9%。ICDPIC(ISS - ICDPIC)和ICDMAP(ISS - ICDMAP)得出的ISS中位数均为8(四分位间距[IQR]=4 - 13)。登记处的ISS中位数(ISS - registry)为9(IQR = 4 - 14)。得出的任何一个评分与ISS - registry之间的中位数差异为零。然而,通过ICD - 9编码映射得出的平均ISS低于登记处手工编码的ISS(ICDPIC低1.7,95%可信区间[1.7, 1.8],Bland - Altman一致性界限=-10.5至13.9;ICDMAP低1.8,95%可信区间[1.7, 1.9],一致性界限=-9.6至13.3)。与手工编码评分相比,ICD - 9得出的ISS略微低估了ISS。这两种方法显示出中度到高度的一致性。虽然可能的话应使用手工编码评分,但当无法获得手工编码评分时,ICD - 9得出的评分在质量保证和研究中可能有用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/928c/5323458/6fceb29c9524/nihms848004f1.jpg

相似文献

引用本文的文献

8
National Study of Triage and Access to Trauma Centers for Older Adults.国家老年人分诊和创伤中心准入研究。
Ann Emerg Med. 2020 Feb;75(2):125-135. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.06.018. Epub 2019 Nov 13.

本文引用的文献

2
Development of a robust mapping between AIS 2+ and ICD-9 injury codes.制定 AIS2+ 和 ICD-9 损伤代码之间的稳健映射。
Accid Anal Prev. 2013 Mar;52:133-43. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2012.11.030. Epub 2013 Jan 16.
10
A comparison of the abilities of nine scoring algorithms in predicting mortality.九种评分算法预测死亡率能力的比较。
J Trauma. 2002 Oct;53(4):621-8; discussion 628-9. doi: 10.1097/00005373-200210000-00001.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验