Validating exacerbations of asthma in electronic health records: a systematic review
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Studies using electronic health records to identify asthma exacerbations |
| I — Intervention | Various algorithms and code lists (ICD-9, ICD-10) to define asthma exacerbations |
| C — Comparator | Clinical validation or reference standards for asthma exacerbations |
| O — Outcomes | Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of algorithms |
Bottom Line
This systematic review identified only five studies validating algorithms to detect asthma exacerbations in electronic health records, highlighting a critical gap in EHR research methodology. While ICD-9 code 493.xx and ICD-10 code J45 showed promising validity (>85% for sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value), the wide variation in sensitivity for basic ICD-9 code 493 (44.8-91.28%) demonstrates the importance of algorithm specificity. The authors identified significant risk of bias in existing studies and called for urgent robust validation work. For Australian clinicians using ICD-10-AM coding, these findings suggest that J45 codes may be reliable for identifying asthma exacerbations in administrative data, but caution is needed given the limited evidence base. This work is particularly relevant for PBS data analysis and practice-based research networks seeking to use EHR data for asthma quality improvement initiatives.
Key Findings
P Value: Not reported
Effect Size: Sensitivity 44.8-91.28% for ICD-9 code 493; >85% for ICD-9 493.xx and ICD-10 J45
Primary Outcome: Diagnostic accuracy of ICD codes for identifying asthma exacerbations
Nnt Or Sensitivity: Sensitivity: ICD-9 493 (44.8-91.28%), ICD-9 493.xx (>85%), ICD-10 J45 (>85%); Specificity: >85% for most algorithms
Confidence Interval: Not reported in abstract
Clinical Application
High - ICD coding is standard practice in healthcare systems Directly applicable to Australian practice as ICD-10-AM is used nationally; relevant for PBS data analysis and RACGP quality improvement initiatives Researchers and clinicians using electronic health records for asthma research and quality improvement
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that the algorithms and code lists used to define asthma exacerbations vary across different sources of data, if reported at all. Defining and validating asthma exacerbations in electronic health records (EHR) would help to improve future research on asthma using EHR by leading to more consistent and comparable evidence. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate studies that define exacerbations of asthma in EHR and report which algorithms have the highest validity. An adapted version of the QUADAS-2 designed for this review was used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Of the studies yielded by the search, only five met the inclusion criteria. Eligible studies used algorithms that contained codes from versions or modifications of either the 9th or 10th revisions of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health (ICD-9 or ICD-10), and validity scores varied. Using the ICD-9 code 493 within algorithms to detect asthma exacerbations, sensitivity scores varied from 44.8% to 91.28% and specificity was >85%. Using the ICD-9 code 493.xx as the principal and secondary diagnosis in claims data, validity measures were all >85%. Using the ICD-10 code J45, scores for sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value were also all >85%. CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms have been used to identify asthma exacerbations in EHR with varying degrees of validity. Algorithms including the ICD-9 code 493.xx or the ICD-10 code J45 to detect asthma exacerbations had high validity scores. However, there was a risk of bias in these studies and urgent work is needed using robust methods to validate definitions for future research using EHR.
References
- 1.Moore, E., Gassasse, Z., Sinha, I., Hawcutt, D. B., & Quint, J. K. (2026). Validating exacerbations of asthma in electronic health records: a systematic review. European Respiratory Review, Article 42203235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.06.091
Related Research
Sleep medicine
Concordance of wearable device sleep metrics with patient-reported sleep quality: A systematic review
3 Aug 2026
Bioelectrochemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
From data to diagnosis: A comprehensive review of machine learning-driven wearable sensors in healthcare.
2 Aug 2026
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Wearable Devices for Monitoring and Management of Comorbid Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Hypertension: Scoping Review
1 Aug 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service