Key result
Global MI incidence assessments miss cases due to methodological limitations and incorrect ICD coding.
Why the study?
Existing methodologies, local registries, and variable ICD coding do not capture all MI cases or provide uniform accounting rules for incidence statistics.
Current statistical methodologies and ICD coding for myocardial infarction incidence are flawed and do not align with the universal definition of MI, leading to inaccurate epidemiological data.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Inaccurate MI incidence data may distort clinical risk assessment and policy; leaves open standardization of global accounting rules aligned with universal definition.
The article presents the features of statistical assessment of myocardial infarction (MI) incidence and prevalence in Russia and some countries of the world. The existing methodology for assessing incidence in Russia does not take into account all cases of MI. Local registries (based on one or several institutions with limitations on age and clinical features) are not a sufficient basis for assessing incidence or prevalence, since they do not represent a representative sample of the population in terms of demographic characteristics. There is a high probability of incorrect use of I22 codes. There are no uniform accounting rules in the world (ICD codes for MI accounting are not similar to universal definition of MI).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Какорина et al. (2024) conducted a review in Myocardial infarction. Statistical assessment of myocardial infarction incidence lacks uniform accounting rules globally and often fails to capture all cases due to methodological limitations and incorrect ICD coding.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: