Assessing Validity of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 Administrative Data in Recording Clinical Conditions in a Unique Dually Coded Database

Overview

Journal Health Serv Res

Specialty Health Services

Date 2008 Aug 30

PMID 18756617

Citations 404

Authors

Hude Quan

Bing Li

L Duncan Saunders

Gerry A Parsons

Carolyn I Nilsson

Arif Alibhai

William A Ghali

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The goal of this study was to assess the validity of the International Classification of Disease, 10th Version (ICD-10) administrative hospital discharge data and to determine whether there were improvements in the validity of coding for clinical conditions compared with ICD-9 Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) data.

Methods: We reviewed 4,008 randomly selected charts for patients admitted from January 1 to June 30, 2003 at four teaching hospitals in Alberta, Canada to determine the presence or absence of 32 clinical conditions and to assess the agreement between ICD-10 data and chart data. We then re-coded the same charts using ICD-9-CM and determined the agreement between the ICD-9-CM data and chart data for recording those same conditions. The accuracy of ICD-10 data relative to chart data was compared with the accuracy of ICD-9-CM data relative to chart data.

Results: Sensitivity values ranged from 9.3 to 83.1 percent for ICD-9-CM and from 12.7 to 80.8 percent for ICD-10 data. Positive predictive values ranged from 23.1 to 100 percent for ICD-9-CM and from 32.0 to 100 percent for ICD-10 data. Specificity and negative predictive values were consistently high for both ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 databases. Of the 32 conditions assessed, ICD-10 data had significantly higher sensitivity for one condition and lower sensitivity for seven conditions relative to ICD-9-CM data. The two databases had similar sensitivity values for the remaining 24 conditions.

Conclusions: The validity of ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data in recording clinical conditions was generally similar though validity differed between coding versions for some conditions. The implementation of ICD-10 coding has not significantly improved the quality of administrative data relative to ICD-9-CM. Future assessments like this one are needed because the validity of ICD-10 data may get better as coders gain experience with the new coding system.

Citing Articles

Evaluating the quality of care for heart failure hospitalizations in inflammatory arthritis - A population-based cohort study.

Kuriya B, Eder L, Koppikar S, Widdifield J, Chu A, Fang J Am Heart J Plus. 2025; 51:100503.

PMID: 39995517 PMC: 11847099. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahjo.2025.100503.

Association between levothyroxine supplementation for hypothyroidism in late pregnancy and risk of prematurity: a population-based cohort study.

Laham M, Sheehy O, Berard A BMC Med. 2025; 23(1):105.

PMID: 39985026 PMC: 11846315. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-025-03934-1.

Peripartum Mental Illness in Mothers With Multiple Sclerosis and Other Chronic Diseases in Ontario, Canada.

Marrie R, Bolton J, Ling Y, Bernstein C, Krysko K, Li P Neurology. 2025; 104(4):e210170.

PMID: 39841953 PMC: 11771961. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000210170.

Use of Albumin-Adjusted Calcium Measurements in Clinical Practice.

Desgagnes N, King J, Kline G, Seiden-Long I, Leung A JAMA Netw Open. 2025; 8(1):e2455251.

PMID: 39836424 PMC: 11751745. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.55251.

Developing a Computational Phenotype of the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction for Inpatients.

Martin E, Har B, Walker R, Southern D, Quan H, Eastwood C J Clin Med. 2025; 13(24.

PMID: 39768697 PMC: 11727869. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13247773.

References

Needham D, Scales D, Laupacis A, Pronovost P . A systematic review of the Charlson comorbidity index using Canadian administrative databases: a perspective on risk adjustment in critical care research. J Crit Care. 2005; 20(1):12-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2004.09.007. View

Kokotailo R, Hill M . Coding of stroke and stroke risk factors using international classification of diseases, revisions 9 and 10. Stroke. 2005; 36(8):1776-81. DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000174293.17959.a1. View

Anderson R, Rosenberg H . Disease classification: measuring the effect of the Tenth Revision of the International Classification of Diseases on cause-of-death data in the United States. Stat Med. 2003; 22(9):1551-70. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1511. View

Yasmeen S, Romano P, Schembri M, Keyzer J, Gilbert W . Accuracy of obstetric diagnoses and procedures in hospital discharge data. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194(4):992-1001. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.08.058. View

Iezzoni L, Shwartz M, Moskowitz M, Ash A, Sawitz E, Burnside S . Illness severity and costs of admissions at teaching and nonteaching hospitals. JAMA. 1990; 264(11):1426-31. View

Quan H, Parsons G, Ghali W . Validity of information on comorbidity derived rom ICD-9-CCM administrative data. Med Care. 2002; 40(8):675-85. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200208000-00007. View

Romano P, Chan B, Schembri M, Rainwater J . Can administrative data be used to compare postoperative complication rates across hospitals?. Med Care. 2002; 40(10):856-67. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200210000-00004. View

Lee D, Donovan L, Austin P, Gong Y, Liu P, Rouleau J . Comparison of coding of heart failure and comorbidities in administrative and clinical data for use in outcomes research. Med Care. 2005; 43(2):182-8. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200502000-00012. View

Romano P, Mark D . Bias in the coding of hospital discharge data and its implications for quality assessment. Med Care. 1994; 32(1):81-90. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199401000-00006. View

10.

Iezzoni L, Burnside S, Sickles L, Moskowitz M, Sawitz E, Levine P . Coding of acute myocardial infarction. Clinical and policy implications. Ann Intern Med. 1988; 109(9):745-51. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-109-9-745. View

11.

Henderson T, Shepheard J, Sundararajan V . Quality of diagnosis and procedure coding in ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2006; 44(11):1011-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000228018.48783.34. View

12.

Southern D, Quan H, Ghali W . Comparison of the Elixhauser and Charlson/Deyo methods of comorbidity measurement in administrative data. Med Care. 2004; 42(4):355-60. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000118861.56848.ee. View

13.

Best W, Khuri S, Phelan M, Hur K, Henderson W, Demakis J . Identifying patient preoperative risk factors and postoperative adverse events in administrative databases: results from the Department of Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2002; 194(3):257-66. DOI: 10.1016/s1072-7515(01)01183-8. View

14.

OMalley K, Cook K, Price M, Wildes K, Hurdle J, Ashton C . Measuring diagnoses: ICD code accuracy. Health Serv Res. 2005; 40(5 Pt 2):1620-39. PMC: 1361216. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00444.x. View

15.

Muhajarine N, Mustard C, Roos L, Young T, Gelskey D . Comparison of survey and physician claims data for detecting hypertension. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997; 50(6):711-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00019-x. View

16.

Hsia D, Ahern C, Ritchie B, Moscoe L, Krushat W . Medicare reimbursement accuracy under the prospective payment system, 1985 to 1988. JAMA. 1992; 268(7):896-9. View

17.

Charlson M, Pompei P, Ales K, MacKenzie C . A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987; 40(5):373-83. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8. View

18.

Geraci J, Ashton C, Kuykendall D, Johnson M, Wu L . International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes in discharge abstracts are poor measures of complication occurrence in medical inpatients. Med Care. 1997; 35(6):589-602. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199706000-00005. View

19.

Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi J . Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005; 43(11):1130-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83. View

20.

Weingart S, Iezzoni L, Davis R, Palmer R, Cahalane M, Hamel M . Use of administrative data to find substandard care: validation of the complications screening program. Med Care. 2000; 38(8):796-806. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200008000-00004. View