Home › Research › Digital health tools
Recommendations for optimal ICD codes to study neurologic conditions: a systematic review
St Germaine-Smith C, Metcalfe A, Pringsheim T, Roberts JI, Beck CA, Hemmelgarn BR, McChesney J, Quan H et al.. Neurology, 2012-08-22
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Objective Administrative health data are frequently used for large population-based studies. However, the validity of these data for identifying neurologic conditions is uncertain. Methods This article systematically reviews the literature to assess the validity of administrative data for identifying patients with neurologic conditions. Two reviewers independently assessed for eligibility all abstracts and full-text articles identified through a systematic search of Medline and Embase. Study data were abstracted on a standardized abstraction form to identify ICD code-based case definitions and corresponding sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs). Results Thirty full-text articles met the eligibility criteria. These included 8 studies for Alzheimer disease/dementia (sensitivity: 8-86.5, specificity: 56.3-100, PPV: 60-97.9, NPV: 68.0-98.9), 2 for brain tumor (sensitivity: 54.0-100, specificity: 97.0-99.0, PPV: 91.0-98.0), 4 for epilepsy (sensitivity: 98.8, specificity: 69.6, PPV: 62.0-100, NPV: 89.5-99.1), 4 for motor neuron disease (sensitivity: 78.9-93.0, specificity: 99.0-99.9, PPV: 38.0-90.0, NPV: 99), 2 for multiple sclerosis (sensitivity: 85-92.4, specificity: 55.9-92.6, PPV: 74.5-92.7, NPV: 70.8-91.9), 4 for Parkinson disease/parkinsonism (sensitivity: 18.7-100, specificity: 0-99.9, PPV: 38.6-81.0, NPV: 46.0), 3 for spinal cord injury (sensitivity: 0.9-90.6, specificity: 31.9-100, PPV: 27.3-100), and 3 for traumatic brain injury (sensitivity: 45.9-78.0 specificity: 97.8, PPV: 23.7-98.0, NPV: 99.2). No studies met eligibility criteria for cerebral palsy, dystonia, Huntington disease, hydrocephalus, muscular dystrophy, spina bifida, or Tourette syndrome. Conclusions To ensure the accurate interpretation of population-based studies with use of administrative health data, the accuracy of case definitions for neurologic conditions needs to be taken into consideration.
Key findings
- Results Thirty full-text articles met the eligibility criteria.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 60/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 60 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 22914826) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 35 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 60 out of 100. |
| Total | 60 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
St Germaine-Smith, C., Metcalfe, A., Pringsheim, T., Roberts, J. I., Beck, C. A., Hemmelgarn, B. R., et al. (2012). Recommendations for optimal ICD codes to study neurologic conditions: a systematic review. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e3182684707
Vancouver
St Germaine-Smith C, Metcalfe A, Pringsheim T, Roberts JI, Beck CA, Hemmelgarn BR, et al. Recommendations for optimal ICD codes to study neurologic conditions: a systematic review. Neurology. 2012. doi:10.1212/wnl.0b013e3182684707. PMID: 22914826.
BibTeX
@article{stgermainesmith2012-22914826,
author = {St Germaine-Smith, C. and Metcalfe, A. and Pringsheim, T. and Roberts, J. I. and Beck, C. A. and Hemmelgarn, B. R. and McChesney, J. and Quan, H. and others},
title = {{Recommendations for optimal ICD codes to study neurologic conditions: a systematic review}},
journal = {Neurology},
year = {2012},
doi = {10.1212/wnl.0b013e3182684707},
pmid = {22914826},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e3182684707}
}
Related studies in Digital health tools
Also tagged “hydrocephalus”
73 studies in the library carry the topic tag “hydrocephalus”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 73 tagged studies.