↓ Skip to main content

Validity of diagnostic codes and laboratory tests of liver dysfunction to identify acute liver failure events

Overview of attention for article published in Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Validity of diagnostic codes and laboratory tests of liver dysfunction to identify acute liver failure events
Published in
Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/pds.3774
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Identification of acute liver failure (ALF) is important for post-marketing surveillance of medications, but the validity of using ICD-9 diagnoses and laboratory data to identify these events within electronic health records is unknown. We examined positive predictive values (PPVs) of hospital ICD-9 diagnoses and laboratory tests of liver dysfunction for identifying ALF within a large, community-based integrated care organization. We identified Kaiser Permanente Northern California health plan members (2004-2010) with a hospital diagnosis suggesting ALF (ICD-9 570, 572.2, 572.4, 572.8, 573.3, 573.8, or V42.7) plus an inpatient international normalized ratio ≥1.5 (off warfarin) and total bilirubin ≥5.0 mg/dL. Hospital records were reviewed by hepatologists to adjudicate ALF events. PPVs for confirmed outcomes were determined for individual ICD-9 diagnoses, diagnoses plus prescriptions for hepatic encephalopathy treatment, and combinations of diagnoses in the setting of coagulopathy and hyperbilirubinemia. Among 669 members with no pre-existing liver disease, chart review confirmed ALF in 62 (9%). Despite the presence of co-existing coagulopathy and hyperbilirubinemia, individual ICD-9 diagnoses had low PPVs (range, 5-15%); requiring prescriptions for encephalopathy treatment did not increase PPVs of these diagnoses (range, 2-23%). Hospital diagnoses of other liver disorders (ICD-9 573.8) plus hepatic coma (ICD-9 572.2) had high PPV (67%; 95%CI, 9-99%) but only identified two (3%) ALF events. Algorithms comprising relevant hospital diagnoses, laboratory evidence of liver dysfunction, and prescriptions for hepatic encephalopathy treatment had low PPVs for confirmed ALF events. Studies of ALF will need to rely on medical records to confirm this outcome. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 52 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Master 8 15%
Other 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Unspecified 3 6%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 12 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Unspecified 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2015.
All research outputs
#28,960,429
of 34,763,505 outputs
Outputs from Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety
#2,121
of 2,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,607
of 308,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety
#27
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,763,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,360 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.