4.6 Article

The validity of the diagnostic code for hidradenitis suppurativa in an electronic database

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 171, 期 2, 页码 338-342

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.13041

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCATS NIH HHS [UL1 TR001102, 1UL1 TR001102-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Electronic claims and medical record databases are important sources of information for medical research. However, potential sources of error and bias, including inaccurate diagnoses, incomplete data, incorrect data entry and misclassification bias, necessitate studies that assess the validity of these databases. Objectives To assess the validity of the diagnostic code for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), which is an increasingly studied disease. Methods In this retrospective study, the medical records of 1168 patients in the Massachusetts General Hospital database who had received at least two International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision 705.83 codes were manually screened. Results Of the screened patients, 1046 (89.6%) were confirmed as having HS. The mean age +/- SD was 44.0 +/- 15.7 years, the median age was 43.0 years and 748 (71.5%) were female. The majority were white (66.7%), while a significant minority were black (13.9%) or Hispanic (13.4%). An increasing number of codes and specific terms used to describe HS in the medical record, including 'hydradenitis', 'boil', 'draining', 'abscess', 'fistula', 'cyst' and 'nodule', could be used to improve the positive predictive value of the search. Conclusion Our results highlight the importance of establishing the validity of diagnostic codes in electronic databases, and allow for refinements of appropriate ways to design future searches. Given the potential for misclassification of patients with HS, establishing the validity of diagnostic codes and search strategies in electronic databases represents a crucial step for subsequent studies utilizing these databases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据