ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2025
Validation of Diagnostic Code Definitions for Identifying Patient in Korean Health Insurance Claims Data: A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Foodborne Illness-Related Diagnostic Coding and Healthcare-Utilization Patterns in South Korea, 2023: A Nationwide Claims-Based Descriptive Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Depression and long-term mortality among 5-year breast cancer survivors in Korea: a retrospective population-based cohort study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth administrative data are widely used in health services research, but diagnostic codes may be subject to misclassification. This scoping review examined the validity and reporting practices of operational definitions using the Korean National Health Insurance Claim Database (KHICD), focusing on compliance with the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement.
methodsPubMed was searched for studies validating operational definitions or using the KHICD for population identification, published between 2020 and 2024. After screening 29 validation studies and 239 KHICD-based studies, 12 validation studies and 157 KHICD-based studies were included. Data on operational definitions, validation methods, and adherence to RECORD guidelines were extracted.
resultsAmong 12 validation studies, most focused on cancer, and algorithms combining diagnostic codes with rare intractable disease program codes, prescription, or procedure codes demonstrated higher positive predictive values than diagnostic codes alone. Among the 157 KHICD-based studies, 131 (83.4%) used diagnosis codes to identify patients, of which 71 (45.2%) combined them with supplementary codes. However, 60 (38.2%) studies relied solely on diagnosis codes, often without specifying diagnosis scope or acknowledging misclassification risks. Only three studies conducted validation, and overall compliance with the RECORD statement was limited.
conclusionWhile operational definitions using combined codes improve patient identification in the KHICD, methodological rigor and reporting transparency remain suboptimal. Systematic validation studies and strict adherence to reporting guidelines are needed to enhance reproducibility and comparability of KHICD-based research.
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.