Trend of intestinal infectious diseases recorded at a tertiary care hospital in India: an ICD-10 analysis

Abstract

The World Health Organization identifies the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in developing countries as infectious and communicable diseases. Health records coded uniformly using ICD-10 can form an accurate database and conclusions drawn from this are extremely important for understanding the public health situation.The aim of this study is to analyse the trend of intestinal infectious diseases recorded at a tertiary care hospital in India.A retrospective disease index study was conducted on data comprising 5317 cases from 2012 to 2016 for intestinal infectious diseases, analysed with ICD-10.Of these, 5.5% were from the age group 0-5 years; 57.66% were male; and 85% deaths in this cohort (62/73) were due to diarrhoea and gastroenteritis of presumed infectious origin.The findings of this study highlight an urgent need for health education among the population regarding infectious intestinal diseases and to redesign health promotion and preventive strategies for addressing these problems.

Associations between ambient temperature and enteric infections by pathogen: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…16 We defined enteric infections as the intestinal infectious diseases listed in the International Classification of Diseases 10 Clinical Modification A00-A09 codes. 30,31…”

“…All the estimates except for cholera had wide prediction intervals in which the value of 1•00 was included. The results of each pathogenspecific meta analysis are summarised in the appendix (pp 17-18, 26,31,36,[38][39][40].…”

“…Leaveoneout analysis from each pathogenspecific metaanalysis (except for typhoid and noroviral enteritis, which had only two studies each) revealed that some studies had considerable influence, but generally did not change the summary estimates and the large hetero geneity (appendix pp 19,26,31,36,38,39). For shigellosis and cholera, omitting the estimates from studies with a high risk of bias did not change the effect estimate and heterogeneity (appendix pp 26,38).…”

“…For shigellosis and cholera, omitting the estimates from studies with a high risk of bias did not change the effect estimate and heterogeneity (appendix pp 26,38). However, omitting an outlier study did significantly reduce the heterogeneity for cholera and the summary estimates for rotavirus (appendix pp 31,38). Additional sensitivity analysis was done for nontyphoidal salmonel losis and typhoid for a study that reported heat and cold effects.…”