ObjectiveThe utility of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes relies on the accuracy of clinical reporting and administrative coding, which may be influenced by country-specific codes and coding rules. This study explores the accuracy and limitations of the Australian Modification of the 10th revision of ICD (ICD-10-AM) to detect the presence of cirrhosis and a subset of key complications for the purpose of future large-scale epidemiological research and healthcare studies.Design/methodICD-10-AM codes in a random sample of 540 admitted patient encounters at a major Australian tertiary hospital were compared with data abstracted from patients’ medical records by four blinded clinicians. Accuracy of individual codes and grouped combinations was determined by calculating sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value and Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ).ResultsThe PPVs for ‘grouped cirrhosis’ codes (0.96), hepatocellular carcinoma (0.97) ascites (0.97) and ‘grouped varices’ (0.95) were good (κ all >0.60). However, codes under-detected the prevalence of cirrhosis, ascites and varices (sensitivity 81.4%, 61.9% and 61.3%, respectively). Overall accuracy was lower for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (‘grouped’ PPV 0.75; κ 0.73) and the poorest for encephalopathy (‘grouped’ PPV 0.55; κ 0.21). To optimise detection of cirrhosis-related encounters, an ICD-10-AM code algorithm was constructed and validated in an independent cohort of 116 patients with known cirrhosis.ConclusionMultiple ICD-10-AM codes should be considered when using administrative databases to study the burden of cirrhosis and its complications in Australia, to avoid underestimation of the prevalence, morbidity, mortality and related resource utilisation from this burgeoning chronic disease.

4Head injuries represent a significant burden of illness. In the United States, where the incidence is approximately 200 per 100,000 population, head trauma accounts for 12% of all hospital admissions, and is associated with a mortality rate of 25 per 100,000. 1 However, with advances in the management of head traumas, there are more individuals who are either in, or emerging from, a state of decreased level of consciousness (LOC). 2 Moreover, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that medical or pharmacological interventions can alleviate two important consequences of brain injury: postinjury neurological impairments and decreased LOC.Neurological symptoms related to the dysfunction of higher ABSTRACT: Brain injuries are a serious burden of illness to Canada and the US. Advances in managing head trauma have allowed more patients to emerge from decreased levels of consciousness and helped them cope with neurocognitive, neurobehavioural, and neuropsychiatric deficits. In this article, we review the current (1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002) evidence surrounding the pharmacological management of arousal states and the aforementioned neurological sequelae of head injury in either acute or chronic conditions. This article will review the evidence for the use of psychostimulants (methylphenidate), antidepressants (amitriptyline, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and buproprion), Parkinson's medications (amantadine, bromocriptine, carbidopa/levodopa), anticonvulsants (valproic acid), modafinil (Provigil), lactate, hyperbaric oxygen chamber, electroconvulsive therapy, and transmagnetic stimulation, in patients following a head injury. The review did not include all anticonvulsants, neuroleptics, beta-blockers, benzodiazepines, azospirones or cognitive enhancers. Unfortunately, the quality of the evidence is generally poor, and sometimes conflicting, which in turn results in indecisive guidelines for treating patients. Accepting the inherent flaws in the evidence we feel that this paper may serve as a stepping-stone for future researchers to improve data gathering that targets neurocognitive, neurobehavioural and neuropsychiatric symptoms following a head injury. Nous n'avons pas inclus l'utilisation de tous les anticonvulsivants, de tous les neuroleptiques, bêtabloquants, benzodiazépines, azospirones ou facilitateurs cognitifs. Malheureusement, la qualité des données est généralement médiocre et parfois elles sont contradictoires, ce qui donne lieu à des lignes directrices ambiguës quant au traitement de ces patients. Le fait de reconnaître les lacunes de ces données peut servir de prémices à une amélioration dans la collecte des données sur les symptômes neurocognitifs, neurocomportementaux et neuropsychiatriques chez les traumatisés crâniens.

No abstract

No abstract