Classifying sports medicine diagnoses: a comparison of the International classification of diseases 10-Australian modification (ICD-10-AM) and the Orchard sports injury classification system (OSICS-8)

Abstract

Background:The International classification of diseases 10-Australian modification (ICD-10-AM) and the Orchard sports injury classification system (OSICS-8) are two classifications currently being used in sports injury research.Objectives:To compare these two systems to determine which was the more reliable and easier to apply in the classification of injury diagnoses of patients who presented to sports physicians in private sports medicine practice.Methods:Ten sports physicians/sports physician registrars each coded one of 10 different lists of 30 sports medicine diagnoses according to both ICD-10-AM and OSICS-8 in random order. The coders noted the time taken to apply each classification system, and allocated an ease of fit score for individual diagnoses into the systems. The 300 diagnoses were each coded twice more by “expert” coders from each system, and these results compared with those of the 10 volunteers.Results:Overall, there was a higher level of agreement between the different coders for OSICS-8 than for ICD-10-AM. On average, it was 23.5 minutes quicker to complete the task with OSICS-8 than with ICD-10-AM. Furthermore, there was also higher concordance between the three coders with OSICS-8. Subjective analysis of the codes assigned indicated reasons for disagreement and showed that, in some instances, even the “expert” coders had difficulties in assigning the most appropriate codes.Conclusions:Based on the results of this study, OSICS-8 appears to be the preferred system for use by inexperienced coders in sports medicine research. The agreement between coders was, however, lower than expected. It is recommended that changes be made to both OSICS-8 and ICD-10-AM to improve their reliability for use in sports medicine research.

Coding OSICS sports injury diagnoses in epidemiological studies: does the background of the coder matter?

“…One study had at least two of three clinically trained coders assigning three-character OSICS-8 codes to 300 sports medicine diagnoses and found a coding agreement of 84% 6. In another study,18 20 written injury diagnoses from professional football, cricket and rugby were used to assess intercoder agreement among eight clinicians (orthopaedic surgeons, physiotherapists and specialist general practitioners).…”

“…In many studies, the person who diagnoses or records the injury is not the same as the person who codes the injury for database management purposes. This introduces potential error because a coder could either misinterpret the written diagnosis or select the wrong code 6. The likelihood of this can be increased for coders with different backgrounds or levels of expertise.…”

Efficacy of a Movement Control Injury-Prevention Programme in an Adult Community Rugby Union Population; A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial

“…Results are presented as RR with 90% CI and interpreted using Clinical-Magnitude Based Inferences. 28 Ten per cent was considered the minimum effect, and threshold values for unlikely/harmful (25) and most/very unlikely (0.5) 28 were used to derive the OR for making clinical inference.…”

“…Injuries were recorded using the Orchard Sports Injury Classification System (V.8) 25 detailing injury type and location. The date a player was fit to play was recorded as the return to play date.…”

Orthopaedic sport biomechanics – a new paradigm

“…When a sport injury or trauma involving musculoskeletal system occurs, orthopaedics specialist takes up the role to manage it. This involves clinical diagnosis (Chan et al, 1995;Chan and Hsu, 1991;Rae et al, 2005), operative and conservative treatments (Fredericson and Wolf, 2005;Jones and Amendola, 2007), and subsequent rehabilitation training (Kvist, 2004;Zoch et al, 2003). The aim is to cure the patient, let him recover and return to sports (Podlog and Eklund, 2004).…”