↓ Skip to main content

Comparing chronic condition rates using ICD-9 and ICD-10 in VA patients FY2014–2016

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparing chronic condition rates using ICD-9 and ICD-10 in VA patients FY2014–2016
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2504-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean Yoon, Adam Chow

Abstract

Management of patients with chronic conditions relies on accurate measurement. It is unknown how transition to the ICD-10 coding system affected reporting of chronic condition rates over time. We measured chronic condition rates 2 years before and 1 year after the transition to ICD-10 to examine changes in prevalence rates and potential measurement issues in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. We developed definitions for 34 chronic conditions using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and compared the prevalence rates of these conditions from FY2014 to 2016 in a 20% random sample (1.0 million) of all VA patients. In each year we estimated the total number of patients diagnosed with the conditions. We regressed each condition on an indicator of ICD-10 (versus ICD-9) measurement to obtain the odds ratio associated with ICD-10. Condition prevalence estimates were similar for most conditions before and after ICD-10 transition. We found significant changes in a few exceptions. Alzheimer's disease and spinal cord injury had more than twice the odds of being measured with ICD-10 compared to ICD-9. HIV/AIDS had one-third the odds, and arthritis had half the odds of being measured with ICD-10. Alcohol dependence and tobacco/nicotine dependence had half the odds of being measured in ICD-10. Many chronic condition rates were consistent from FY14-16, and there did not appear to be widespread undercoding of conditions after ICD-10 transition. It is unknown whether increased sensitivity or undercoding led to decreases in mental health conditions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 14%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Unspecified 7 11%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Unspecified 7 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 15 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,675,796
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#585
of 7,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,411
of 318,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#21
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,702 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,832 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.