Yu, Amy Y XQuan, HudeMcRae, AndrewWagner, Gabrielle OHill, Michael DCoutts, Shelagh B2018-09-262018-09-262017-09-18BMC Health Services Research. 2017 Sep 18;17(1):666http://hdl.handle.net/1880/108038https://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/45606Abstract Background Validation of administrative data case definitions is key for accurate passive surveillance of disease. Transient ischemic attack (TIA) is a condition primarily managed in the emergency department. However, prior validation studies have focused on data after inpatient hospitalization. We aimed to determine the validity of the Canadian 10th International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10-CA) codes for TIA in the national ambulatory administrative database. Methods We performed a diagnostic accuracy study of four ICD-10-CA case definition algorithms for TIA in the emergency department setting. The study population was obtained from two ongoing studies on the diagnosis of TIA and minor stroke versus stroke mimic using serum biomarkers and neuroimaging. Two reference standards were used 1) the emergency department clinical diagnosis determined by chart abstractors and 2) the 90-day final diagnosis, both obtained by stroke neurologists, to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of the ICD-10-CA algorithms for TIA. Results Among 417 patients, emergency department adjudication showed 163 (39.1%) TIA, 155 (37.2%) ischemic strokes, and 99 (23.7%) stroke mimics. The most restrictive algorithm, defined as a TIA code in the main position had the lowest sensitivity (36.8%), but highest specificity (92.5%) and PPV (76.0%). The most inclusive algorithm, defined as a TIA code in any position with and without query prefix had the highest sensitivity (63.8%), but lowest specificity (81.5%) and PPV (68.9%). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were overall lower when using the 90-day diagnosis as reference standard. Conclusions Emergency department administrative data reflect diagnosis of suspected TIA with high specificity, but underestimate the burden of disease. Future studies are necessary to understand the reasons for the low to moderate sensitivity.Journal Article2018-09-26enThe Author(s).https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2612-6