Nantais Jordan, Mansour Muhammad, de Mestral Charles, Jayaraman Shiva, Gomez David
Division of General Surgery, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2022 Aug 31;26(3):277-280. doi: 10.14701/ahbps.21-171. Epub 2022 Jul 19.
BACKGROUNDS/AIMS: Biliary colic is a common cause of emergency department (ED) visits; however, the natural history of the disease and thus the indications for urgent or scheduled surgery remain unclear. Limitations of previous attempts to elucidate this natural history at a population level are based on the reliance on the identification of biliary colic via administrative codes in isolation. The purpose of our study was to validate the use of International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems codes, 10th Revision, Canadian modification (ICD-10-CA) from ED visits in adequately differentiating patients with biliary colic from those with other biliary diagnoses such as cholecystitis or common bile duct stones.
We performed a retrospective validation study using administrative data from two large academic hospitals in Toronto. We assessed all the patients presenting to the ED between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2018, assigned ICD-10-CA codes in keeping with uncomplicated biliary colic. The codes were compared to the individually abstracted charts to assess diagnostic agreement.
Among the 991 patient charts abstracted, 26.5% were misclassified, corresponding to a positive predictive value of 73% (95% confidence interval 73%-74%). The most frequent reasons for inaccurate diagnoses were a lack of gallstones (49.8%) and acute cholecystitis (27.8%).
Our findings suggest that the use of ICD-10 codes as the sole means of identifying biliary colic to the exclusion of other biliary pathologies is prone to moderate inaccuracy. Previous investigations of biliary colic utilizing administrative codes for diagnosis may therefore be prone to unforeseen bias.
背景/目的:胆绞痛是急诊科就诊的常见原因;然而,该病的自然病程以及紧急或择期手术的指征仍不明确。以往在人群层面阐明这一自然病程的尝试存在局限性,原因在于单纯依赖行政代码来识别胆绞痛。我们研究的目的是验证使用第十次修订版《国际疾病和相关健康问题统计分类》加拿大修订本(ICD - 10 - CA)对急诊科就诊患者进行编码,能否充分区分胆绞痛患者与其他胆道疾病(如胆囊炎或胆总管结石)患者。
我们利用多伦多两家大型学术医院的行政数据进行了一项回顾性验证研究。我们评估了2012年1月1日至2018年12月31日期间所有到急诊科就诊的患者,按照单纯性胆绞痛的情况分配ICD - 10 - CA编码。将这些编码与单独提取的病历进行比较,以评估诊断一致性。
在提取的991份患者病历中,26.5%被错误分类,阳性预测值为73%(95%置信区间73% - 74%)。诊断不准确的最常见原因是无胆结石(49.8%)和急性胆囊炎(27.8%)。
我们研究结果表明,仅使用ICD - 10编码来识别胆绞痛而排除其他胆道病变的方法容易出现中度不准确。因此,以往利用行政代码进行诊断的胆绞痛调查可能容易出现意想不到的偏差。