Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Study design and data flow, cohort setting.

A total of 82,898 patients were enrolled during the study period. 255 and 197 patients who met the IC-A and B were extracted, respectively. Patients selected for IC-C (n = 197) were excluded from the subsequent analyses due to the same number of patients as in IC-B. JMDC; Japan Medical Data Center, ICD-10; Tenth Revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, IC; Inclusion criteria, PPV; positive predictive value, NPV; negative predictive value.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Inclusion criteria, and details of the confirmed diagnosis.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Assessment of validity for each cohort.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 2.

Details of medical chart review.

(A) Details of medical chart review for Cohort-A. 83% of cases were confirmed for Crohn’s disease (CD) (confirmed diagnosis at own institution, or another hospital). 7% were considered suspected diagnosis. Cases denied for CD (10%) included infectious enterocolitis (n = 4), intestinal Behçet’s disease (n = 2), drug-induced enterocolitis (n = 1), intestinal tuberculosis (n = 1), unspecified intestinal stenosis (n = 1), and cirrhosis (n = 1). (B) Details of medical chart review for Cohort-B. 97% of cases were confirmed CD. 3% were considered suspected diagnoses. None of the cases were denied CD. *a; Confirmed diagnosis at own institution, b; Diagnosed by an IBD specialist or gastroenterologist in another hospital, c; Diagnosed by a primary care physician (with a description of the findings supporting the diagnosis), d; Diagnosed by a primary care physician (without a description of the findings supporting the diagnosis), CD; Crohn’s disease.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 3.

Baseline characteristics of each cohort.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Inter- and intra-rater reliability of the medical chart review.

More »

Table 4 Expand