rss
Occup Environ Med 2006;63:734-740 doi:10.1136/oem.2006.027243
  • Original article

The impact on relative risk estimates of inconsistencies between ICD-9 and ICD-10

  1. D B Richardson
  1. Correspondence to:
 Assistant Professor D Richardson
 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA; david.richardson{at}unc.edu
  • Accepted 19 May 2006
  • Published Online First 25 May 2006

Abstract

Background: The 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) represents a major change in the ICD system. This paper investigates the impact on relative risk estimates of inconsistencies in outcome classification between ICD-9 and ICD-10, including scenarios in which occupational exposure levels are correlated with year of death (and therefore with the ICD revision in effect at death). The setting of interest is a cohort mortality study in which follow up spans the periods during which ICD-9 and ICD-10 were in effect. The relative risk estimate obtained when death certificates are coded to the ICD revision in effect at time of death is compared to the relative risk estimate that would be obtained if all death certificates were coded to a consistent ICD revision (that is, ICD-10). The ratio of these relative risks is referred to as the coefficient of bias.

Methods: Simple equations relate the coefficient of bias to the sensitivity and specificity of the classification of decedents into categories of cause of death via ICD-9 (treating classifications based upon ICD-10 as the standard). Bridge coded mortality data for 2 296 922 decedents (that is, death certificates coded to ICD-9 and ICD-10) are used to derive estimates of sensitivity and specificity by category of cause of death. Numerical examples illustrate the application of these equations.

Results: Estimates of the sensitivity of classification of decedents into categories of death defined by ICD-9 ranged from 0.26–1.00. Specificity was above 0.98 for all categories of cause of death. Numerical examples illustrate that inconsistencies in outcome classification between ICD-9 and ICD-10 may have substantial impact on relative risk estimates if there is a strong relation between exposure status and the proportion of deaths coded to a given ICD revision.

Conclusions: For analyses of mortality outcomes that exhibit poor comparability between ICD-9 and -10, it may be prudent to recode cause of death information to a standard ICD revision in order to avoid bias that can occur when exposures are correlated with the proportion of deaths coded to a given ICD revision.

Footnotes

  • Published Online First 25 May 2006

This Article

  1. web only appendix
  2. All Versions of this Article:
    1. oem.2006.027243v1
    2. 63/11/734 most recent

Services

  1. Request permissions

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Social bookmarking

Register for free content


Free sample
This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of OEM.
View free sample issue >>

Free archive
The full back archive is now available for OEM. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006, back to volume 1 issue 1.
Register to access the free archive >>

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.