The predictive value of ICD-10 diagnostic coding used to assess Charlson comorbidity index conditions in the population-based Danish National Registry of Patients

Abstract

BackgroundThe Charlson comorbidity index is often used to control for confounding in research based on medical databases. There are few studies of the accuracy of the codes obtained from these databases.We examined the positive predictive value (PPV) of the ICD-10 diagnostic coding in the Danish National Registry of Patients (NRP) for the 19 Charlson conditions.MethodsAmong all hospitalizations in Northern Denmark between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2007 with a first-listed diagnosis of a Charlson condition in the NRP, we selected 50 hospital contacts for each condition. We reviewed discharge summaries and medical records to verify the NRP diagnoses, and computed the PPV as the proportion of confirmed diagnoses.ResultsA total of 950 records were reviewed. The overall PPV for the 19 Charlson conditions was 98.0% (95% CI; 96.9, 98.8). The PPVs ranged from 82.0% (95% CI; 68.6%, 91.4%) for diabetes with diabetic complications to 100% (one-sided 97.5% CI; 92.9%, 100%) for congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, mild and severe liver disease, hemiplegia, renal disease, leukaemia, lymphoma, metastatic tumour, and AIDS.ConclusionThe PPV of NRP coding of the Charlson conditions was consistently high.

Nationwide population-based cohort study to assess risk of surgery for adhesive small bowel obstruction following open or laparoscopic rectal cancer resection

“…Co‐morbidity was assessed using the Charlson co‐morbidity index (CCI)25 and categorized as none (score 0), mild (score 1), moderate (score 2) or severe (score 3 or more).…”

German Heart Report 2013

“…The studies show that the validity of the administrative data and the overall data concerning procedures is high, although large differences are seen for specific diagnoses [17][18][19].…”

Risk of stroke and bleeding in patients with heart failure and chronic kidney disease: a nationwide cohort study

“…The diagnosis of HF has previously been validated with a sensitivity of 29%, a specificity of 99%, and a positive predictive value of 81–100%15, 33; thus, we likely did not capture all patients with HF and also cannot be certain that all patients identified as having HF had definite HF. Nonetheless, this most likely applies equally to both exposed and non‐exposed, and the suboptimal positive predictive value is therefore not a likely explanation for the observed associations.…”