PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Skei, Nina Vibeche
AU  - Damås, Jan Kristian
AU  - Gustad, Lise Tuset
TI  - Number of ICD-10 diagnosis fields required to capture sepsis in administrative data and truncation bias: A nationwide prospective registry study
AID  - 10.1101/2024.07.03.24309876
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.07.03.24309876
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/05/2024.07.03.24309876.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/05/2024.07.03.24309876.full
AB  - Background In observational studies that uses administrative data, it is essential to report technical details such as the number of International Classification of Disease (ICD) coding fields extracted. This information is crucial for ensuring comparability between studies and for avoiding truncation bias in estimates, particularly for complex conditions like sepsis. Specific sepsis codes (explicit sepsis) is suggested identified by extracting 15 diagnosis fields, while for implicit sepsis, comprising an infection code combined with an acute organ failure, the number of diagnosis field remains unknown.Objective The objective was to explore the necessary number of diagnosis fields to capture explicit and implicit sepsis.Materials and methods We conducted a study utilizing The Norwegian Patient Register (NPR), which encompasses all medical ICD-10 codes from specialized health services in Norway. Data was extracted for all adult patients with hospital admissions registered under explicit and implicit sepsis codes from all Norwegian hospitals between 2008 through 2021.Results In 317,705 sepsis admissions, we observed that 105,499 ICD-10 codes were identified for explicit sepsis, while implicit sepsis was identified through 270,346 codes for infection in combination with 240,586 codes for acute organ failure. Through our analysis, we found that 55.3%, 37.0%, and 10.0% of the explicit, infection, and acute organ failure codes, respectively, were documented as the main diagnosis. The proportion of explicit and infection codes peaked in main diagnosis field, while for acute organ failure codes this was true in the third diagnosis field. Notably, the cumulative proportion reached 99% in diagnosis field 11 for explicit codes and in diagnosis field 14 for implicit codes.Conclusion Expanding the utilization of multiple diagnosis fields can enhance the comparability of data in epidemiological studies, both internationally and within countries. To make truncation bias visible, reporting guidelines should specify the number of diagnosis fields when extracting ICD-10 codes.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementOur work was supported by the Mid-Norway Health Authority (2019/38881) and Nord-Trondelag Hospital Trust (2022/1927, 2022/31982).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study was approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Eastern Norway (2019/42772) and the Data Access Committee in Health North-Trondelag (2021/184).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesNo additional data available. We do not have ethical approval to deposit our datasets in publicly available repositories. Researchers need approval by the Regional Ethical Committee for handling of NPR data files. The NPR has precise information on all data exported to different projects and there are no restrictions regarding data export given Regional Etical comitee approval.