Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Emergency and Trauma Centre, The Alfred, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Inj Prev. 2018 Apr;24(2):157-160. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042206. Epub 2017 Feb 16.
Accurate coding of injury event information is critical in developing targeted injury prevention strategies. However, little is known about the validity of the most universally used coding system, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), in characterising crash counterparts in pedal cycling events. This study aimed to determine the agreement between hospital-coded ICD-10-AM (Australian modification) external cause codes with self-reported crash characteristics in a sample of pedal cyclists admitted to hospital following bicycle crashes. Interview responses from 141 injured cyclists were mapped to a single ICD-10-AM external cause code for comparison with ICD-10-AM external cause codes from hospital administrative data. The percentage of agreement was 77.3% with a κ value of 0.68 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.77), indicating substantial agreement. Nevertheless, studies reliant on ICD-10 codes from administrative data should consider the 23% level of disagreement when characterising crash counterparts in cycling crashes.
准确编码伤害事件信息对于制定有针对性的伤害预防策略至关重要。然而，关于最广泛使用的编码系统——国际疾病分类（ICD-10）——在描述脚踏车事故中碰撞对手方面的有效性，知之甚少。本研究旨在确定医院编码的 ICD-10-AM（澳大利亚修正版）外部原因代码与脚踏车事故后住院的脚踏车骑手样本中自我报告的碰撞特征之间的一致性。对 141 名受伤骑手的访谈回复进行了映射，以与医院管理数据中的 ICD-10-AM 外部原因代码进行比较。一致性百分比为 77.3%，κ 值为 0.68（95%CI 0.61 至 0.77），表明存在高度一致性。尽管如此，当描述脚踏车事故中的碰撞对手时，依赖于管理数据中的 ICD-10 代码的研究应考虑 23%的不一致率。
