ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Classifying sports medicine diagnoses: a comparison of the International classification of diseases 10-Australian modification (ICD-10-AM) and the Orchard sports injury classification system (OSICS-8)

K Rae¹, H Britt², J Orchard³, C Finch⁴

¹ Sports Medicine at Sydney University, The Sports Clinic, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
² Family Medicine Research Centre, University of Sydney
³ NSW Injury Risk Management Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney
⁴ NSW Injury Risk Management Research Centre, University of New South Wales

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr Rae
Sports Medicine at Sydney University, The Sports Clinic, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; katherinerae{at}optusnet.com.au

Background: The International classification of diseases 10-Australian modification (ICD-10-AM) and the Orchard sports injury classification system (OSICS-8) are two classifications currently being used in sports injury research.

Objectives: To compare these two systems to determine which was the more reliable and easier to apply in the classification of injury diagnoses of patients who presented to sports physicians in private sports medicine practice.

Methods: Ten sports physicians/sports physician registrars each coded one of 10 different lists of 30 sports medicine diagnoses according to both ICD-10-AM and OSICS-8 in random order. The coders noted the time taken to apply each classification system, and allocated an ease of fit score for individual diagnoses into the systems. The 300 diagnoses were each coded twice more by "expert" coders from each system, and these results compared with those of the 10 volunteers.

Results: Overall, there was a higher level of agreement between the different coders for OSICS-8 than for ICD-10-AM. On average, it was 23.5 minutes quicker to complete the task with OSICS-8 than with ICD-10-AM. Furthermore, there was also higher concordance between the three coders with OSICS-8. Subjective analysis of the codes assigned indicated reasons for disagreement and showed that, in some instances, even the "expert" coders had difficulties in assigning the most appropriate codes.

Conclusions: Based on the results of this study, OSICS-8 appears to be the preferred system for use by inexperienced coders in sports medicine research. The agreement between coders was, however, lower than expected. It is recommended that changes be made to both OSICS-8 and ICD-10-AM to improve their reliability for use in sports medicine research.

Abbreviations: ICD-10-AM, International classification of diseases 10-Australian modification; OSICS-8, Orchard sports injury classification system; SMIS, Sports medicine injury surveillance

Keywords: injury diagnoses; classification systems; sports medicine; International classification of diseases 10-Australian modification (ICD-10-AM); Orchard sports injury classification system (OSICS-8)

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Hammond, L E, Lilley, J, Ribbans, W J (2009). Coding sports injury surveillance data: has version 10 of the Orchard Sports Injury Classification System improved the classification of sports medicine diagnoses?. Br. J. Sports. Med. 43: 498-502 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Finch, C F, Boufous, S (2008). Do inadequacies in ICD-10-AM activity coded data lead to underestimates of the population frequency of sports/leisure injuries?. Inj. Prev. 14: 202-204 [Abstract] [Full Text]