Why the study?
Most observational studies have not used validated ICD-10 coding algorithms or manually confirmed diagnoses of gastrointestinal bleeding, raising concerns regarding the validity of their results.
Does a newly developed ICD-10 coding algorithm accurately identify gastrointestinal bleeding events compared to manual chart review in patients receiving oral anticoagulation?
Does a newly developed ICD-10 coding algorithm accurately identify gastrointestinal bleeding events compared to manual chart review in patients receiving oral anticoagulation?
This nationwide validation study provides a high-specificity (99.6%) and high-PPV (90.0%) ICD-10 coding algorithm for identifying clinically severe upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding in patients on oral anticoagulants, though its modest sensitivity (61.3%) suggests augmenting with endoscopy and death registries when estimating true incidence.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
High specificity/PPV supports reliable use of this ICD-10 algorithm for severe GI bleed research in anticoagulated patients; leaves open capture of milder events.
ICD-10 codes are commonly used to identify gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) events in observational studies. However, most studies have neither used validated ICD-10 coding algorithms to identify GIB events nor manually confirmed the diagnosis of GIB, which raises concerns regarding the validity of their results. The aim of the study was to estimate the accuracy of ICD-10 codes for GIB in patients receiving oral anticoagulation and to develop new coding algorithm for identifying GIB events. Using a national prescription database, all patients receiving oral anticoagulation in Iceland from 2014 to 2019 were identified. GIB events were identified using thorough search of ICD-10 codes from all five major hospitals in Iceland. To augment the code search, endoscopy results and death cause in the national death registry were reviewed. All diagnoses were manually confirmed via chart review and used as gold standard. The PPV was calculated for individual codes, and codes with PPV ≥ 75% were included in the ICD-10 coding algorithm. The ICD-10 coding algorithm had 61.3% sensitivity, 99.6% specificity, 90.0% PPV, and 98.0% negative predictive value. GIB events identified using this ICD-10 coding algorithm were more commonly major bleeding events, and more commonly required hospitalization, anticoagulation reversal, anticoagulation discontinuation, and endoscopic intervention compared to GIB events that were missed. The ICD-10 coding algorithm reported here had good accuracy in identifying true GIB events and the events that it identified were clinically more severe than those that it missed. The sensitivity of the ICD-10 coding algorithm was modest and can be improved by reviewing endoscopic results and death registries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ingason et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: