↓ Skip to main content

Validation of Administrative Codes for Calcium Pyrophosphate Deposition

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Rheumatology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Validation of Administrative Codes for Calcium Pyrophosphate Deposition
Published in
Journal of Clinical Rheumatology, June 2015
DOI 10.1097/rhu.0000000000000251
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Despite high prevalence, progress in calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) has been limited by poor awareness and absence of validated approaches to study it in large data sets. We aimed to determine the accuracy of administrative codes for the diagnosis of CPPD as a foundational step for future studies. We identified all patients with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code for chondrocalcinosis (712.1-712.39) or pseudogout/other disorders of mineral metabolism (275.49), and convenience sample selected a comparison group with gout (274.00-03 or 274.8-9), or rheumatoid arthritis (714.0) from 2009 to 2011 at a Veterans Affairs medical center. Each patient was categorized as having definite, probable, or possible CPPD or absence of CPPD based on the McCarty and Ryan criteria using chart abstracted data including crystal analysis, radiographs, and arthritis history. Two hundred forty-nine patients met the clinical gold standard criteria for CPPD based on medical records, whereas 48 patients met definite criteria, 183 probable, and 18 met possible criteria. The accuracy of administrative claims with a code of 712 or 275.49 for definite or probable CPPD was as follows: 98% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 96%-99%), 78% specificity (74%-83%), 91% positive predictive value, and 94% negative predictive value. At this center, single administrative code 275.49 or 712 accurately identifies patients with CPPD with a positive predictive value of 91%. These findings suggest that administrative codes can have strong clinical accuracy and merit further validation to allow adoption in future epidemiologic studies of CPPD.

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.
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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 6%
Unknown 16 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 24%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Lecturer 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 41%
Mathematics 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 5 29%
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 05 August 2015.
All research outputs
#28,598,653
of 34,358,242 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Rheumatology
#1,711
of 2,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,021
of 307,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Rheumatology
#10
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,358,242 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 2,415 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 307,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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.