Cited by 358Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentMedical Coding and Health InformationMachine Learning in Healthcare

Identifying Patients With Severe Sepsis Using Administrative Claims: Patient-Level Validation of the Angus Implementation of the International Consensus Conference Definition of Severe Sepsis

Open access
Iwashyna, Theodore J., Odden, Andrew, Rohde, Jeffrey, Bonham, Catherine, Kuhn, Latoya, Malani, Preeti, Chen, Lena, Flanders, Scott·2014·Medical Care

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Severe sepsis is a common and costly problem. Although consistently defined clinically by consensus conference since 1991, there have been several different implementations of the severe sepsis definition using ICD-9-CM codes for research. We conducted a single center, patient-level validation of 1 common implementation of the severe sepsis definition, the so-called "Angus" implementation. METHODS: Administrative claims for all hospitalizations for patients initially admitted to general medical services from an academic medical center in 2009-2010 were reviewed. On the basis of ICD-9-CM codes, hospitalizations were sampled for review by 3 internal medicine-trained hospitalists. Chart reviews were conducted with a structured instrument, and the gold standard was the hospitalists' summary clinical judgment on whether the patient had severe sepsis. RESULTS: Three thousand one hundred forty-six (13.5%) hospitalizations met ICD-9-CM criteria for severe sepsis by the Angus implementation (Angus-positive) and 20,142 (86.5%) were Angus-negative. Chart reviews were performed for 92 randomly selected Angus-positive and 19 randomly-selected Angus-negative hospitalizations. Reviewers had a κ of 0.70. The Angus implementation's positive predictive value was 70.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 51.2%, 90.5%]. The negative predictive value was 91.5% (95% CI: 79.0%, 100%). The sensitivity was 50.4% (95% CI: 14.8%, 85.7%). Specificity was 96.3% (95% CI: 92.4%, 100%). Two alternative ICD-9-CM implementations had high positive predictive values but sensitivities of <20%. CONCLUSIONS: The Angus implementation of the international consensus conference definition of severe sepsis offers a reasonable but imperfect approach to identifying patients with severe sepsis when compared with a gold standard of structured review of the medical chart by trained hospitalists.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mlr.0b013e318268ac86

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [33]Rothman KJ Greenland S Modern Epidemiology 2 Philadelphia Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins 1998
  2. [39]Poulose JT Cartin-Ceba R Shoja A Comparison of International Classification of Disease–Ninth Revision (ICD–9) Coding with Retrospective Case Review for the Diagnosis of Septic Shock Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009 179 A4361

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Iwashyna, T. J., Odden, A., Rohde, J., Bonham, C., Kuhn, L., Malani, P., Chen, L., & Flanders, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • VA Center for Clinical Management Research (US)
Corresponding author
  • Iwashyna, Theodore J.
  • Odden, Andrew
  • Rohde, Jeffrey
  • Bonham, Catherine
  • Malani, Preeti
  • Chen, Lena
  • Flanders, Scott
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2014-06
Volume
52
Issue
6
Pages
e39-e43
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2331591468
Cited by
358
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
16.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Michigan
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K08HL091249, HL091249)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
severe sepsis, sepsis definitions, ICD-9-CM codes, administrative claims, positive predictive value, sensitivity and specificity, hospitalization, medical records review, hospitalists
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Adult, Aged, Algorithms, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Medicare, Health Plan Implementation, Health Status Indicators, Hospitalization, Humans, Insurance Claim Review, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Organ Failure, Shock, Septic, United States, Sepsis, Guideline Adherence, International Classification of Diseases

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review