ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Validation of Lactational Mastitis Diagnosis Codes in Electronic Health Care Data.
Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectronic health record data are an underused source for lactation-related research. The validity of the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM)-coded lactational mastitis is unknown.
methodsWe assessed lactational mastitis diagnosis code validity by medical record review. We included patients from three health care systems with a live birth between December 2020 and September 2022 whose infant had ≥1 well visit and for whom there was electronic health record documentation of lactation in patient or infant records. We used ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes (N61.0 and O91.2) to identify patients with suspected lactational mastitis and assessed antibiotic dispensings. We performed medical record reviews on a random sample to determine whether suspected lactational mastitis cases met definitions for "probable" (breast symptoms with systemic symptoms) or "possible" (breast symptoms without systemic symptoms) lactational mastitis. We report positive predictive values (PPV) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsAmong 19,660 eligible patients, 1,023 (5.2%) had either N61.0 or O91.2 diagnosis code and 768 (3.9%) had a diagnosis code and antibiotic dispensed. Chart reviews of 119 identified PPV of 76% (95% CI: 67.3, 82.9) for probable and 97% (95% CI: 91.6, 98.7) for probable or possible lactational mastitis. Restricting to those dispensed an antibiotic (n = 87), PPVs improved to 80% (95% CI: 69.6, 87.4) for probable and 100% (95% CI: 95.8, 100) for probable or possible lactational mastitis.
conclusionsDiagnosis codes alone have good PPV for lactational mastitis. PPV for lactational mastitis improves when including antibiotic data, although case numbers decrease. Future research may consider the use of ICD-10 codes alone for the identification of lactational mastitis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.