Validating ICD code case definitions for condition case ascertainment in multimorbidity measurement: a retrospective chart review

Clicks: 1
ID: 317052
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #115 of 129 articles by views in the journals of gerontology series a, biological sciences and medical sciences

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 129 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate case ascertainment of chronic conditions is critical for research, clinical decision-making, and population health management, especially for older adults with high multimorbidity. However, validation of ICD-based case definitions in the electronic health record (EHR) data remains limited. We sought to determine whether a single ICD code is sufficient for accurate identification of chronic conditions in the EHR, or whether multiple codes improve validity. METHODS: Population-based retrospective chart review, 2013-2019, at large academic tertiary and quaternary care health system. Our sample included adults aged ≥18 years with ≥2 encounters within a 2-year period. We conducted gold-standard chart review to determine validity of using ≥1 or ≥ 2 ICD codes to identify 23 chronic conditions included in the validated multimorbidity-weighted index, specifically those lacking robust case definitions in EHR data. Validation statistics included positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), Cohen's kappa, sensitivity, specificity, and percent sample size loss associated with stricter ≥2 ICD code case definitions. RESULTS: The final analytic sample included 780,873 adults (mean (SD) age 47.7 (18.0) years, 56.9% female). For 22 of 23 conditions, use of ≥ 1 ICD code yielded a PPV ≥0.70. Requiring ≥2 ICD codes yielded minimal improvement in PPV but with substantial sample size loss that ranged from 16.8% to 64.5%. CONCLUSIONS: ≥1 ICD code was sufficient to accurately identify most chronic conditions with high accuracy in the EHR over a multi-year timeframe. However, condition-specific validation remains essential, as performance varies by condition.
Reference Key
openalex_W7164380302 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Ashley J Kang, Chi-Hong Tseng, Melissa Y. Wei
Journal the journals of gerontology series a, biological sciences and medical sciences
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/gerona/glag157
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.