Methods Inf Med 2014; 53(03): 195-201
DOI: 10.3414/ME13-01-0053
Original Articles
Schattauer GmbH

Comparison of Validity of Mapping between Drug Indications and ICD-10

Direct and Indirect Terminology Based Approaches
Y. Choi
1  The Catholic University of Korea, College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
C. Jung
1  The Catholic University of Korea, College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
Y. Chae
2  Yonsei University, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
M. Kang
1  The Catholic University of Korea, College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
J. Kim
3  KIMS Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
K. Joung
3  KIMS Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
J. Lim
3  KIMS Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
S. Cho
3  KIMS Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
S. Sung
3  KIMS Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea
,
E. Lee
4  Sungkyunkwan University, School of Pharmacy, Suwon, Republic of Korea
,
S. Kim
1  The Catholic University of Korea, College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received: 04 May 2013

accepted: 28 February 2014

Publication Date:
20 January 2018 (online)

Summary

Background: Mapping of drug indications to ICD-10 was undertaken in Korea by a public and a private institution for their own purposes. A different mapping approach was used by each institution, which presented a good opportunity to compare the validity of the two approaches.

Objectives: This study was undertaken to compare the validity of a direct mapping approach and an indirect terminology based mapping approach of drug indications against the gold standard drawn from the results of the two mapping processes.

Methods: Three hundred and seventy-five cardiovascular reference drugs were selected from all listed cardiovascular drugs for the study. In the direct approach, two experienced nurse coders mapped the free text indications directly to ICD-10. In the indirect terminology based approach, the indications were extracted and coded in the Korean Standard Terminology of Medicine. These terminology coded indications were then manually mapped to ICD-10. The results of the two approaches were compared to the gold standard. A kappa statistic was calculated to see the compatibility of both mapping approaches. Recall, precision and F1 score of each mapping approach were calculated and analyzed using a paired t-test.

Results: The mean number of indications for the study drugs was 5.42. The mean number of ICD-10 codes that matched in direct approach was 46.32 and that of indirect terminology based approach was 56.94. The agreement of the mapping results between the two approaches were poor (kappa = 0.19). The indirect terminology based approach showed higher recall (86.78%) than direct approach (p < 0.001). However, there was no difference in precision and F1 score between the two approaches.

Conclusions: Considering no differences in the F1 scores, both approaches may be used in practice for mapping drug indications to ICD-10. However, in terms of consistency, time and manpower, better results are expected from the indirect terminology based approach.