首页> 外文期刊>Neurosurgery >Are We Underestimating the Burden of Traumatic Brain Injury? Surveillance of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Using Centers for Disease Control International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, Traumatic Brain Injury Codes
【24h】

Are We Underestimating the Burden of Traumatic Brain Injury? Surveillance of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Using Centers for Disease Control International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, Traumatic Brain Injury Codes

机译:我们是在低估创伤性脑损伤的负担吗?使用疾病控制中心对严重创伤性脑损伤进行监测国际疾病分类,第九次修订,临床修改,创伤性脑损伤代码

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is often studied through the use of international Classification of Disease, ninth revision, clinical modification (ICD-9-CM), diagnosis codes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention TBI Surveillance System. Recent studies suggest that these codes may underestimate the burden of TBI because of inaccuracies and low sensitivity.OBJECTIVE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of ICD-9-CM codes in a severe TBI population.METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of all hospital admissions including computed tomography of the head at a single center to identify severe blunt TBI patients, their injuries, and the neurosurgical procedures performed. We calculated sensitivity and specificity by comparing ICD-9-CM diagnosis and procedure codes assigned by hospital coders with medical records, the gold standard. RESULTS: In 2008, there were 148 qualifying admissions. These codes were 89% sensitive for the presence of any severe TBI. However, one-fifth of these cases were identified only with a code defining a nonspecific head injury. Next, we studied types of TBI by categories defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (morbidity groups) and by ICD-9-CM codes for types of injury (any skull fracture, intracranial contusion, intracranial hemorrhage, concussion/loss of consciousness) and found widely varying sensitivity and specificity for both. In general, these codes had higher specificity than sensitivity. Both sensitivity and specificity were > 80% for only 2 categories: any skull fracture and intracranial hemorrhage. In contrast, we found high sensitivity and specificity for neurosurgical procedures (97% and 94%). CONCLUSION: ICD-9-CM codes were sensitive for the presence of any severe TBI, but further classification of specific types of TBI was limited by variable sensitivity/specificity. Use of these codes should be supplemented by other methodology.
机译:背景:创伤性脑损伤(TBI)的流行病学经常通过使用国际疾病分类,第九修订版,临床修改(ICD-9-CM),疾病控制和预防中心TBI监视系统的诊断代码进行研究。最近的研究表明,由于不准确和敏感性低,这些法规可能低估了TBI的负担。目的:确定ICD-9-CM法规在重度TBI人群中的敏感性和特异性方法:我们回顾性审查了所有医院的病历入院包括在单个中心进行计算机X线断层扫描以识别严重的钝性TBI患者,他们的受伤情况以及所执行的神经外科手术。我们通过比较ICD-9-CM诊断和医院编码员分配的程序代码与病历(黄金标准)来计算敏感性和特异性。结果:在2008年,有148个合格入学学生。这些代码对于任何严重的TBI敏感度为89%。但是,这些病例中有五分之一仅通过定义非特异性颅脑损伤的代码来识别。接下来,我们按照疾病控制与预防中心(发病组)和ICD-9-CM规定的伤害类型(任何颅骨骨折,颅内挫伤,颅内出血,脑震荡/意识丧失)定义的类别研究了TBI的类型),发现两者的敏感性和特异性差异很大。通常,这些密码具有比敏感性更高的特异性。仅有两个类别的敏感性和特异性均> 80%:任何颅骨骨折和颅内出血。相反,我们发现对神经外科手术的敏感性和特异性很高(分别为97%和94%)。结论:ICD-9-CM代码对任何严重的TBI均敏感,但是特定类型的TBI的进一步分类受到可变灵敏度/特异性的限制。这些代码的使用应辅以其他方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号