↓ Skip to main content

Development and validation of an administrative data algorithm to identify adults who have endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Development and validation of an administrative data algorithm to identify adults who have endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis
Published in
Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40463-017-0216-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristian I. Macdonald, Shaun J. Kilty, Carl van Walraven

Abstract

This was a diagnostic accuracy study to develop an algorithm based on administrative database codes that identifies patients with Chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS) who have endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). From January 1(st), 2011 to December 31(st), 2012, a chart review was performed for all hospital-identified ESS surgical encounters. The reference standard was developed as follows: cases were assigned to encounters in which ESS was performed for Otolaryngologist-diagnosed CRS; all other chart review encounters, and all other hospital surgical encounters during the timeframe were controls. Algorithm development was based on International Classification of Diseases, version 10 (ICD-10) diagnostic codes and Canadian Classification of Health Interventions (CCI) procedural codes. Internal model validation was performed with a similar chart review for all model-identified cases and 200 randomly selected controls during the following year. During the study period, 347 cases and 185,007 controls were identified. The predictive model assigned cases to all encounters that contained at least one CRS ICD-10 diagnostic code and at least one ESS CCI procedural code. Compared to the reference standard, the algorithm was very accurate: sensitivity 96.0% (95%CI 93.2-97.7), specificity 100% (95% CI 99.9-100), and positive predictive value 95.4% (95%CI 92.5-97.3). Internal validation using chart review for the following year revealed similar accuracy: sensitivity 98.9% (95%CI 95.8-99.8), specificity 97.1% (95%CI 93.4-98.8), and positive predictive value 96.9% (95%CI 93.0-99.8). A simple model based on administrative database codes accurately identified ESS-CRS encounters. This model can be used in population-based cohorts to study longitudinal outcomes for the ESS-CRS population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 31%
Other 1 8%
Professor 1 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 4 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 46%
Computer Science 1 8%
Unknown 6 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 March 2018.
All research outputs
#21,011,157
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery
#446
of 632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,372
of 325,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery
#12
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 325,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.