To identify studies that have validated administrative and claims database algorithms for identifying patients with orthopedic device revision or removal.
As a part of the Food and Drug Administration's Mini‐Sentinel pilot program, we performed a systematic review to identify algorithms for orthopedic implant removal/revision in administrative and claims databases in the USA or Canada.
Five studies examined the validity of database algorithms against a gold standard of documentation in medical records (
n= 3) or codes/documentation in another database ( n= 2). The positive predictive values (PPV) of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification( ICD‐9‐CM) and/or the Current Procedural Terminologycodes for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the US Medicare population compared with medical record review were 92%and 91%, respectively. In another study of the US Medicare population, multiple ICD‐9codes for revision total knee arthroplasty were compared with newly available single ICD‐9‐CMcodes for revision knee arthroplasty; sensitivity was 87% and specificity was 99% (PPV not provided). The fourth study validated the ICD‐9‐CMcodes for revision total knee arthroplasty against Ontario health insurance physician fee service claims as the gold standard and found a PPV of 32%. In the last study in Medicare population, the accuracy of the attribution of revision THA to the same side as the earlier index primary THA was examined; PPV for same laterality of revision THA was 71% (using ICD‐9‐CMcodes). Conclusions
Validation data, with regard to the
ICD‐9‐CMor the Current Procedural Terminologycode algorithms for revision THA in the Medicare population, exist. More validation studies are needed to confirm these findings and examine other large databases. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.