Key result
An ICD-10 diagnosis of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in the Danish National Patient Register had an overall positive predictive value of 75.9% (95% CI 71.3-80.0) and a sensitivity of 68%.
Why the study?
Administrative hospital discharge diagnoses are frequently used in studies of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, but the validity of ICD codes for identifying these events is unknown.
What is the positive predictive value and sensitivity of ICD-10 codes for identifying cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in the Danish National Patient Register?
Observational
Yes
What is the positive predictive value and sensitivity of ICD-10 codes for identifying cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in the Danish National Patient Register?
ICD-10 codes for cancer-associated VTE in the Danish National Patient Register have adequate PPV (75.9%) but limited sensitivity (68%), warranting cautious interpretation in register-based research.
Moderate PPV/sensitivity warrant caution using ICD-10 codes alone for cancer-associated VTE; leaves open need for validated algorithms or chart review in registries.
INTRODUCTION: Hospital discharge diagnoses from administrative registries are frequently used in studies of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism, but the validity of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for identifying such events is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using patient samples from the Danish National Patient Register, we calculated positive predictive values (PPV), i.e., the proportion of registered ICD codes, which could be confirmed after manual search of the electronic health record. Sensitivity was estimated in a sample of patients with imaging-verified venous thromboembolism but without prior knowledge about their ICD coding status. Sensitivity was calculated as the proportion of these patients, who were discharged with an ICD code for venous thromboembolism. RESULTS: The overall PPV of an ICD-10 diagnosis of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism was 75.9 % (95 % confidence interval 71.3-80.0). In subgroups, the PPV was particularly low for recurrent venous thromboembolism (44.2 %), diagnoses in a secondary position (55.7 %), outpatient diagnoses (65.3 %), and diagnoses given at surgical (66.7 %), emergency wards (48.4 %), or via hospices/palliative teams (0 %). The overall sensitivity was 68 %, meaning 32 % of patients with cancer diagnosed in hospital with venous thromboembolism were discharged without any registered ICD code for venous thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: The positive predictive value of an ICD diagnosis of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in the Danish Patient Register was overall adequate for research purposes, but with notable variation across subgroups. Sensitivity was limited, as 1/3 of patients with venous thromboembolism were discharged without any relevant ICD code. Cautious interpretation of incidence of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism based on administrative register-based data is warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Overvad et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. ICD-10 diagnosis codes for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism vs. Manual search of electronic health record / imaging-verified venous thromboembolism was evaluated on Positive predictive value of an ICD-10 diagnosis of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (95% CI 71.3-80.0). An ICD-10 diagnosis of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism in the Danish National Patient Register had an overall positive predictive value of 75.9% (95% CI 71.3-80.0) and a sensitivity of 68%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: