A framework for selection of health terminology systems: A prerequisite for interoperability of health information systems

Khorrami, Farid; Ahmadi, Maryam; Karami, Nader Alishan; Alipour, Jahanpour; Sheikhtaheri, Abbas

doi:10.1016/j.imu.2022.100949

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clinical classifications and terminology systems are widely used for standardizing patients' health information at the point of care for different purposes such as clinical, research, reimbursement, and epidemiological purposes [9][10][11]. Additionally, terminological systems are essential for structured documentation of patient data in Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the crucial advantages of these systems is the establishment of a common controlled vocabulary for effective communication by capturing unified medical terms and concepts [13]. Furthermore, such structured contents can be reused for a variety of purposes and represented in many different information systems [10][11][12][13][14][15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evaluation of the content coverage of existing (or new) ontologies is a quintessential feature of each terminological (ontological) system. Content coverage presents the extent of content representation (either term or concept) for a developed terminology, based on the standards and is highly recommended to be evaluated in order to expand the adequacy of the content representation [10,23]. A systematic review shows that there are few studies focusing on the content coverage evaluation of terminological systems in the ophthalmology domain [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Content coverage presents the extent of content representation (either term or concept) for a developed terminology, based on the standards and is highly recommended to be evaluated in order to expand the adequacy of the content representation [10,23]. A systematic review shows that there are few studies focusing on the content coverage evaluation of terminological systems in the ophthalmology domain [10]. In the study by Hwang et al [12], content coverage analysis was conducted on five controlled terminological systems of ICD-9, Logical Observation Identifiers, Names, and Codes (LOINC), SNOMED-CT, Medical Entities Dictionary (MED), and Current Procedural Terminology, fourth edition (CPT-4).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A health terminological system for inherited retinal diseases: Content coverage evaluation and a proposed classification

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To present a classification of inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) and evaluate its content coverage in comparison with common standard terminology systems. Methods In this comparative cross-sectional study, a panel of subject matter experts annotated a list of IRDs based on a comprehensive review of the literature. Then, they leveraged clinical terminologies from various reference sets including Unified Medical Language System (UMLS), Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED-CT) and Orphanet Rare Disease Ontology (ORDO). Results Initially, we generated a hierarchical classification of 62 IRD diagnosis concepts in six categories. Subsequently, the classification was extended to 164 IRD diagnoses after adding concepts from various standard terminologies. Finally, 158 concepts were selected to be classified into six categories and genetic subtypes of 412 cases were added to the related concepts. UMLS has the greatest content coverage of 90.51% followed respectively by SNOMED-CT (83.54%), ORDO (81.01%), OMIM (60.76%), and ICD-11 (60.13%). There were 53 IRD concepts (33.54%) that were covered by all five investigated systems. However, 2.53% of the IRD concepts in our classification were not covered by any of the standard terminologies. Conclusions This comprehensive classification system was established to organize IRD diseases based on phenotypic and genotypic specifications. It could potentially be used for IRD clinical documentation purposes and could also be considered a preliminary step forward to developing a more robust standard ontology for IRDs or updating available standard terminologies. In comparison, the greatest content coverage of our proposed classification was related to the UMLS Metathesaurus.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%