<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Juhasova Z</submitter><funding>Charles University</funding><pagination>2910-2918</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12464641</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>91(10)</volume><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Aims&lt;/h4>Several methods exist to identify hospital admissions related to adverse drug events (ADEs). Clinical adjudication by healthcare professionals is the gold standard but is labour-intensive. Spontaneous reporting and routinely collected healthcare data using a set of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes often underestimate the prevalence of ADE-related admissions. Expanding the set of ICD codes could improve detection; however, validation is limited. The objective was to describe the agreement between ADE-related ICD-10 codes and clinically adjudicated ADE-related admissions in 2 settings.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>This study analysed 2 datasets: 1102 readmissions from a hospital in the Netherlands (180 ADE-related) and 1228 admissions from a hospital in the Czech Republic (195 ADE-related). Clinical adjudication involved expert review including causality assessment to identify ADE-related hospital admissions. The sensitivities and specificities were calculated for a narrow code set (higher drug-likelihood codes containing words like drug-induced) and a broad code set of ICD-10 codes (including codes very likely, likely and possibly ADE-related).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>The narrow ICD-10 set showed a sensitivity of 3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2-6%) and a specificity of 99.6% (95% CI 99-100%). The broad set increased sensitivity to 27% (95% CI 23-32%), with specificity decreasing slightly to 92% (95% CI 91-94%). Preventable ADEs were identified less frequently with both ICD-10 code sets.&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>Only 3% of ADE-related admissions were detected by the narrow ICD-code set and 27% by the broad code set without a significant drop in the specificity. ADE-related ICD codes seem to serve as triggers for 1 in 4 ADE-related hospital admissions.</pubmed_abstract><journal>British journal of clinical pharmacology</journal><pubmed_title>The use of international classification of diseases codes to identify hospital admissions linked with adverse drug events: Validation study.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC12464641</pmcid><funding_grant_id>Cooperatio Program Pharmaceutical Sciences</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Weir DL</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Juhasova Z</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Karapinar-Carkit F</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>The use of international classification of diseases codes to identify hospital admissions linked with adverse drug events: Validation study.</name><description>&lt;h4>Aims&lt;/h4>Several methods exist to identify hospital admissions related to adverse drug events (ADEs). Clinical adjudication by healthcare professionals is the gold standard but is labour-intensive. Spontaneous reporting and routinely collected healthcare data using a set of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes often underestimate the prevalence of ADE-related admissions. Expanding the set of ICD codes could improve detection; however, validation is limited. The objective was to describe the agreement between ADE-related ICD-10 codes and clinically adjudicated ADE-related admissions in 2 settings.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>This study analysed 2 datasets: 1102 readmissions from a hospital in the Netherlands (180 ADE-related) and 1228 admissions from a hospital in the Czech Republic (195 ADE-related). Clinical adjudication involved expert review including causality assessment to identify ADE-related hospital admissions. The sensitivities and specificities were calculated for a narrow code set (higher drug-likelihood codes containing words like drug-induced) and a broad code set of ICD-10 codes (including codes very likely, likely and possibly ADE-related).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>The narrow ICD-10 set showed a sensitivity of 3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2-6%) and a specificity of 99.6% (95% CI 99-100%). The broad set increased sensitivity to 27% (95% CI 23-32%), with specificity decreasing slightly to 92% (95% CI 91-94%). Preventable ADEs were identified less frequently with both ICD-10 code sets.&lt;h4>Conclusions&lt;/h4>Only 3% of ADE-related admissions were detected by the narrow ICD-code set and 27% by the broad code set without a significant drop in the specificity. ADE-related ICD codes seem to serve as triggers for 1 in 4 ADE-related hospital admissions.</description><dates><release>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2025 Oct</publication><modification>2026-06-03T21:07:51.417Z</modification><creation>2026-05-30T03:07:26.517Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC12464641</accession><cross_references><pubmed>40452631</pubmed><doi>10.1002/bcp.70116</doi></cross_references></HashMap>