Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Validation of an ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM map to AIS 2005 Update 2008
  1. Kimberly M Glerum1,
  2. Mark R Zonfrillo2
  1. 1 Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
  2. 2 Department of Emergency Medicine, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Mark R Zonfrillo, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Department of Emergency Medicine, 55 Claverick St, 2nd floor, Providence, RI 02903, USA; zonfrillo{at}


Although the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) is the most widely used severity scoring system for traumatic injuries, hospitals are required to document and bill based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). An expert panel recently developed a map between ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM to AIS 2005 Update 2008. This study aimed to validate the recently developed map using a large trauma registry. The map demonstrated moderate to substantial agreement for maximum AIS (MAIS) scores per body region based on expert chart review versus map-derived values (range: 44%–86%). Injury Severity Scores (ISSs) calculated from expert coders versus map-derived values were also compared and demonstrated moderate agreement (ICD-9-CM: 48%, ICD-10-CM: 54%). Although not a perfect conversion tool, the new ICD-AIS map provides a systematic method to assign injury severity for datasets with only ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes available and can be used for future injury-related research and data analysis.

  • coding systems
  • severity scales
  • registry

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors KMG and MRZ designed the research, conducted the research, analysed the data, drafted the manuscript and critically reviewed and approved the final manuscript; MRZ had primary responsibility for final content.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Institutional review board.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.