Validation of ICD 10 on congenital anomalies in the state of Penang
- Author:
Leela Anthony
;
Nagarajah Lee
;
Stephen Ambu
;
Lokman Hakim
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Congenital Anomalies, Validation , ICD 10.
- From:International e-Journal of Science, Medicine and Education
2011;5(2):12-17
- CountryMalaysia
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background: Database on hospital records like discharge
data, birth and death certificates are widely used for
epidemiological and research studies. However there are
a very few validation studies on these data. The aim of
this study was to validate and assess the accuracy of the
ICD 10 database on congenital anomalies in the state of
Penang. This study was carried out for three years, from
2002 to 2004.
Methods: The list of cases coded under the general coding
“Q” was extracted and approximately 30% of cases were
randomly selected from the list. Medical records for the
selected cases were checked and discrepancies for the
diagnoses between the medical records and the ICD 10
data base were recorded for three years. Verification was
done for basic demographic variables and the coding of
the diseases. Discrepancies, sensitivity and specificity
were calculated.
Results: The ICD 10 database for congenital anomalies
are classified into two types: Type 1 and Type 2.
Discrepancies on demographic information were found
among the age of patients (babies with congenital
anomalies). In Type 1, there was a discrepancy of about
0.02 % to 0.05% probability that a congenital anomaly
case can be recorded as non congenital anomaly in
the ICD 10. In Type 2 there was a discrepancy that a
non-congenital anomaly was classified as congenital
anomaly and this ranged from 26.7% to 50.0%. The
sensitivity ranged from 96.85% to 97.98%, thus it can
be concluded the ICD 10 database is highly sensitive
while the specificity ranged from 50.00% to 78.57 %. In
other words the ICD 10 is not accurate when classifying
the non- congenital anomaly cases. A fair percentage of
non-congenital anomaly cases were classified as CA in
the ICD 10 database.
Conclusion: Even though hospital databases are
used as a baseline data for a number of research and
epidemiological studies it cannot be used at face
value. Validation of these data is necessary before any
conclusions can be drawn or intervention measures are
undertaken.
- Full text:W020150928538138577782.pdf
