English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  Claims data has usually been used in recent studies to identify cases of healthcare-associated infection. However, several studies have indicated that the ICD-9-CM codes might be inappropriate for identifying such cases from claims data; therefore, several researchers developed alternative identification models to correctly identify more cases from claims data. The purpose of this study was to investigate three common approaches to develop alternative models for the identification of cases of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgical site infection, and to compare the performance between these models and the ICD-9-CM model.    Methods  The 2005–2008 National Health Insurance claims data and healthcare-associated infection surveillance data from two medical centers were used in this study for model development and model verification. In addition to the use of ICD-9-CM codes, this study also used classification algorithms, a multivariable regression model, and a decision tree model in the development of alternative identification models. In the classification algorithms, we defined three levels (strict, moderate, and loose) of the criteria in terms of their strictness. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were used to evaluate the performance of each model.    Results  The ICD-9-CM-based model showed good specificity and negative predictive value, but sensitivity and positive predictive value were poor. Performances of the other models were varied, except for negative predictive value. Among the models, the performance of the decision tree model was excellent, especially in terms of positive predictive value.    Conclusion  The accuracy of identification of cases of CABG surgical site infection is an important issue in claims data. Use of the decision tree model to identify such cases can improve the accuracy of patient-level outcome research. This model should be considered when performing future research using claims data.

Is it possible to identify cases of coronary artery bypass graft postoperative surgical site infection accurately from claims data?