Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2008 Aug;43(4):1424-41.
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00822.x.

Assessing validity of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data in recording clinical conditions in a unique dually coded database

Collaborators, Affiliations
Comparative Study

Assessing validity of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data in recording clinical conditions in a unique dually coded database

Hude Quan et al. Health Serv Res. 2008 Aug.

Abstract

Objective: The goal of this study was to assess the validity of the International Classification of Disease, 10th Version (ICD-10) administrative hospital discharge data and to determine whether there were improvements in the validity of coding for clinical conditions compared with ICD-9 Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) data.

Methods: We reviewed 4,008 randomly selected charts for patients admitted from January 1 to June 30, 2003 at four teaching hospitals in Alberta, Canada to determine the presence or absence of 32 clinical conditions and to assess the agreement between ICD-10 data and chart data. We then re-coded the same charts using ICD-9-CM and determined the agreement between the ICD-9-CM data and chart data for recording those same conditions. The accuracy of ICD-10 data relative to chart data was compared with the accuracy of ICD-9-CM data relative to chart data.

Results: Sensitivity values ranged from 9.3 to 83.1 percent for ICD-9-CM and from 12.7 to 80.8 percent for ICD-10 data. Positive predictive values ranged from 23.1 to 100 percent for ICD-9-CM and from 32.0 to 100 percent for ICD-10 data. Specificity and negative predictive values were consistently high for both ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 databases. Of the 32 conditions assessed, ICD-10 data had significantly higher sensitivity for one condition and lower sensitivity for seven conditions relative to ICD-9-CM data. The two databases had similar sensitivity values for the remaining 24 conditions.

Conclusions: The validity of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data in recording clinical conditions was generally similar though validity differed between coding versions for some conditions. The implementation of ICD-10 coding has not significantly improved the quality of administrative data relative to ICD-9-CM. Future assessments like this one are needed because the validity of ICD-10 data may get better as coders gain experience with the new coding system.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sensitivity Values for 32 Conditions Derived from ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 Hospital Discharge Abstract Data Relative to Chart Review Data as the “Reference Standard.”
Figure 2
Figure 2
κ Values for 32 Conditions Derived from ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 Hospital Discharge Abstract Data Relative to Chart Review Data as the “Reference Standard.”

References

    1. Anderson RN, Rosenberg HM. Disease Classification: Measuring the Effect of the Tenth Revision of the International Classification of Diseases on Cause-of-Death Data in the United States. Statistics in Medicine. 2003;22:1551–70. - PubMed
    1. Best WR, Khuri SF, Phelan M, Hur K, Henderson WG, Demakis JG, Daley J. Identifying Patient Preoperative Risk Factors and Postoperative Adverse Events in Administrative Databases: Results from the Department of Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Journal of American College of Surgeons. 2002;194:257–66. - PubMed
    1. Canadian Institute for Health Information. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems Tenth Revision, Canada [ICD-10-CA] Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2003.
    1. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Canadian Coding Standards for ICD-10-CA and CCI for 2007. Ottawa: Canadian Institute of Health Information; 2007.
    1. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A New Method of Classifying Prognostic Comorbidity in Longitudinal Studies: Development and Validation. Journal of Chronic Diseases. 1987;40:373–83. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms