Authors' Reply: Critique of ICD Code Accuracy in Identifying Cardiovascular Events in CKD and Kidney Failure Populations

We appreciate the thoughtful Letter to the Editor from Wang et al.1 and thank them for their generous remarks regarding the value of our JASN study.2 We also acknowledge and agree with their observations concerning the study's limitations. First, it is true that International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes versus physician adjudication for cardiovascular events had low sensitivity overall. As we acknowledged in the discussion, this may have been because of the limitations of the data collection. Unfortunately, we were unable to determine whether the low sensitivity was due to missed diagnoses by ICD codes, underreporting diagnoses, or incorrect ICD code usage by the treating patient clinician. For that reason, we advise that use of ICD codes versus physician adjudication may not be appropriate for all studies. Second, given that ICD-10 code updates were meant to more accurately capture diagnoses than ICD-9 codes, we agree that it is unexpected that we observed lower positive predictive values for all four outcomes when using ICD-10 codes. Prior studies in other populations have also shown variable results when comparing ICD-9 versus ICD-10 codes.3–5 This certainly warrants further investigation. Third, the authors raised concerns about using primary ICD codes in our analyses. Our decision to use primary codes came out of practicality of ICD code collection changes in our data from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort study. This approach allowed us to capture the greatest number of events during study follow-up. However, we also performed a secondary analysis in which we reported results when using both primary and secondary codes (Figures 1 and 2). In conclusion, we are grateful for the thoughtful engagement with our work. While our study represents an initial step toward understanding the accuracy of ICD codes compared with physician adjudication for identifying cardiovascular events in individuals with CKD and kidney failure, it also highlights important areas for future research. ICD codes may not be ideal for outcome identification in all research settings. A clear understanding of their strengths and limitations of this approach can help investigators choose the most appropriate methods based on their specific research question.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Published
2025-11-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1681/asn.0000000931
Primary Topic
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Authors' Reply: Critique of ICD Code Accuracy in Identifying Cardiovascular Events in CKD and Kidney Failure Populations

Anna M. Zemke, Nisha Bansal
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
article

Authors' Reply: Critique of ICD Code Accuracy in Identifying Cardiovascular Events in CKD and Kidney Failure Populations

Anna M. Zemke, Nisha Bansal
article en

Abstract

We appreciate the thoughtful Letter to the Editor from Wang et al.1 and thank them for their generous remarks regarding the value of our JASN study.2 We also acknowledge and agree with their observations concerning the study's limitations. First, it is true that International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes versus physician adjudication for cardiovascular events had low sensitivity overall. As we acknowledged in the discussion, this may have been because of the limitations of the data collection. Unfortunately, we were unable to determine whether the low sensitivity was due to missed diagnoses by ICD codes, underreporting diagnoses, or incorrect ICD code usage by the treating patient clinician. For that reason, we advise that use of ICD codes versus physician adjudication may not be appropriate for all studies. Second, given that ICD-10 code updates were meant to more accurately capture diagnoses than ICD-9 codes, we agree that it is unexpected that we observed lower positive predictive values for all four outcomes when using ICD-10 codes. Prior studies in other populations have also shown variable results when comparing ICD-9 versus ICD-10 codes.3–5 This certainly warrants further investigation. Third, the authors raised concerns about using primary ICD codes in our analyses. Our decision to use primary codes came out of practicality of ICD code collection changes in our data from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort study. This approach allowed us to capture the greatest number of events during study follow-up. However, we also performed a secondary analysis in which we reported results when using both primary and secondary codes (Figures 1 and 2). In conclusion, we are grateful for the thoughtful engagement with our work. While our study represents an initial step toward understanding the accuracy of ICD codes compared with physician adjudication for identifying cardiovascular events in individuals with CKD and kidney failure, it also highlights important areas for future research. ICD codes may not be ideal for outcome identification in all research settings. A clear understanding of their strengths and limitations of this approach can help investigators choose the most appropriate methods based on their specific research question.

Journal of the American Society of NephrologyVol. 37(3)
University of Washington (US), Colorado Kidney Care (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 29%
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.