Hi there,
I was working with the package (great one btw) and looking at the ICD10 codes included for each diagnosis. I have noticed that C86 (in ICD10 of course) is missing. It is missing in Quan et al. 2005 but I see that the code does exist in newer versions of the ICD10 code. I suspect it was not taken into account by Quan et al. because it was non-existing at the time.
Here is the line where C86 is not mentioned, which is consistent with literature but a bit puzzling for common sense:
|
lofregex[["charlson"]][["icd10"]][["canc"]] <- "^C00|^C01|^C02|^C03|^C04|^C05|^C06|^C07|^C08|^C09|^C10|^C11|^C12|^C13|^C14|^C15|^C16|^C17|^C18|^C19|^C20|^C21|^C22|^C23|^C24|^C25|^C26|^C30|^C31|^C32|^C33|^C34|^C37|^C38|^C39|^C40|^C41|^C43|^C45|^C46|^C47|^C48|^C49|^C50|^C51|^C52|^C53|^C54|^C55|^C56|^C57|^C58|^C60|^C61|^C62|^C63|^C64|^C65|^C66|^C67|^C68|^C69|^C70|^C71|^C72|^C73|^C74|^C75|^C76|^C81|^C82|^C83|^C84|^C85|^C88|^C90|^C91|^C92|^C93|^C94|^C95|^C96|^C97" |
What is your thought on this? For my research, I am leaning toward tweaking the regex and mention that the computation of Charlson was based on the algorithm of Quan et al. but with this one modification.
I totally acknowledge this is not per se a bug in the package!
Hi there,
I was working with the package (great one btw) and looking at the ICD10 codes included for each diagnosis. I have noticed that C86 (in ICD10 of course) is missing. It is missing in Quan et al. 2005 but I see that the code does exist in newer versions of the ICD10 code. I suspect it was not taken into account by Quan et al. because it was non-existing at the time.
Here is the line where C86 is not mentioned, which is consistent with literature but a bit puzzling for common sense:
comorbidity/data-raw/make-data.R
Line 191 in 4a52052
What is your thought on this? For my research, I am leaning toward tweaking the regex and mention that the computation of Charlson was based on the algorithm of Quan et al. but with this one modification.
I totally acknowledge this is not per se a bug in the package!