• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Clin Epidemiol . Positive Predictive Value of the ICD-10 Diagnosis Code for Long-COVID

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Clin Epidemiol


. 2022 Feb 9;14:141-148.
doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S344515. eCollection 2022.
Positive Predictive Value of the ICD-10 Diagnosis Code for Long-COVID


Lærke Storgaard Duerlund[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Shakil Shakar[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Henrik Nielsen[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Jacob Bodilsen[SUP] 1 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the positive predictive value (PPV) of International Classification version 10 (ICD-10) diagnosis codes for long coronavirus disease 2019 (long-COVID) in a Danish Health registry.
Patients and methods: This was a medical record review of all patients with a diagnosis code of long-COVID (DB948A) at all hospitals in the North Denmark Region from February 27, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Confirmed long-COVID was categorized as fulfillment of all three criteria: (1) a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 on a respiratory sample or a positive serum antibody test, (2) symptoms suggestive of long-COVID with no other diagnosis considered more likely, and (3) symptom duration >6 weeks.
Results: A total of 306 patients were assigned a hospital diagnosis code for long-COVID corresponding to 1.4% of all SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals during the study period (n=21,727). Next, 40 patients were excluded due to incomplete diagnostic evaluation at time of record review leaving 266 patients for analysis. The patients had a median age of 51 years (interquartile range 43-60) and 175/266 (66%) were females. Long-COVID was confirmed in 249/266 yielding an overall PPV of 94% (95%CI: 90-96) and did not differ substantially according to most age groups, sex, previous hospitalization for COVID-19, or by using 12 weeks of symptom duration as cut-off. The PPV was low for children and adolescents (n=5), the very elderly (n=9), and those included by secondary long-COVID diagnoses (n=10).
Conclusion: The overall PPV of diagnosis codes for long-COVID in the North Denmark Region was high and was likely suitable for future registry-based studies of long-COVID. Caution is advised at the extremes of age and secondary diagnosis codes.

Keywords: coronavirus disease 2019; diagnosis codes; epidemiology; post-COVID; validation.
 
Back
Top Bottom