↓ Skip to main content

How well do ICD-9 physician claim diagnostic codes identify confirmed pertussis cases in Alberta, Canada? A Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN) Study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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.
Title
How well do ICD-9 physician claim diagnostic codes identify confirmed pertussis cases in Alberta, Canada? A Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN) Study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2321-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sumana Fathima, Kimberley A. Simmonds, Steven J. Drews, Lawrence W. Svenson, Jeffrey C. Kwong, Salaheddin M. Mahmud, Susan Quach, Caitlin Johnson, Kevin L. Schwartz, Natasha S. Crowcroft, Margaret L. Russell, For the Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN) Provincial Collaborative Network Vaccine Effectiveness Working Group

Abstract

Rates of Bordetella pertussis have been increasing in Alberta, Canada despite vaccination programs. Waning immunity from existing acellular component vaccines may be contributing to this. Vaccine effectiveness can be estimated using a variety of data sources including diagnostic codes from physician billing claims, public health records, reportable disease and laboratory databases. We sought to determine if diagnostic codes from billing claims (administrative data) are adequately sensitive and specific to identify pertussis cases among patients who had undergone disease-specific laboratory testing. Data were extracted for 2004-2014 from a public health communicable disease database that contained data on patients under investigation for B. pertussis (both those who had laboratory tests and those who were epidemiologically linked to laboratory-confirmed cases) in Alberta, Canada. These were deterministically linked using a unique lifetime person identifier to the provincial billing claims database, which contains International Classification of Disease version 9 (ICD-9) diagnostic codes for physician visits. We examined visits within 90 days of laboratory testing. ICD-9 codes 033 (whooping cough), 033.0 (Bordetella pertussis), 033.1 (B. parapertussis), 033.8 (whooping cough, other specified organism), and 033.9 (whooping cough, other unspecified organism) in any of the three diagnostic fields for a claim were classified as being pertussis-specific codes. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values. We identified 22,883 unique patients under investigation for B. pertussis. Of these, 22,095 underwent laboratory testing. Among those who had a laboratory test, 2360 tested positive for pertussis. The sensitivity of a pertussis-specific ICD-9 code for identifying a laboratory-confirmed case was 38.6%, specificity was 76.9%, PPV was 16.0%, and NPV was 91.6%. ICD-9 codes from physician billing claims data have low sensitivity and moderate specificity to identify laboratory-confirmed pertussis among persons tested for pertussis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 14%
Other 3 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 36%
Unspecified 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 9 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 September 2020.
All research outputs
#7,018,845
of 23,149,216 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#3,440
of 7,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,597
of 312,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#86
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,149,216 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,756 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
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 312,908 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.