Representation of ophthalmology concepts by electronic systems: Adequacy of controlled medical terminologies

Michael Chiang, Daniel S. Casper, James J. Cimino, Justin Starren

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To assess the adequacy of 5 controlled medical terminologies (International Classification of Diseases 9, Clinical Modification [ICD9-CM]; Current Procedural Terminology 4 [CPT-4]; Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine, Clinical Terms [SNOMED-CT]; Logical Identifiers, Names, and Codes [LOINC]; Medical Entities Dictionary [MED]) for representing concepts in ophthalmology. Design: Noncomparative case series. Participants: Twenty complete ophthalmology case presentations were sequentially selected from a publicly available ophthalmology journal. Methods: Each of the 20 cases was parsed into discrete concepts, and each concept was classified along 2 axes: (1) diagnosis, finding, or procedure and (2) ophthalmic or medical concept. Electronic or paper browsers were used to assign a code for every concept in each of the 5 terminologies. Adequacy of assignment for each concept was scored on a 3-point scale. Findings from all 20 case presentations were combined and compared based on a coverage score, which was the average score for all concepts in that terminology. Main Outcome Measures: Adequacy of assignment for concepts in each terminology, based on a 3-point Likert scale (0, no match; 1, partial match; 2, complete match). Results: Cases were parsed into 1603 concepts. SNOMED-CT had the highest mean overall coverage score (1.625±0.667), followed by MED (0.974±0.764), LOINC (0.781±0.929), ICD9-CM (0.280±0.619), and CPT-4 (0.082±0.337). SNOMED-CT also had higher coverage scores than any of the other terminologies for concepts in the diagnosis, finding, and procedure categories. Average coverage scores for ophthalmic concepts were lower than those for medical concepts. Conclusions: Controlled terminologies are required for electronic representation of ophthalmology data. SNOMED-CT had significantly higher content coverage than any other terminology in this study.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)175-183
Number of pages9
JournalOphthalmology
Volume112
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ophthalmology
Terminology
Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine
Medical Dictionaries
Current Procedural Terminology
International Classification of Diseases
Names
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Representation of ophthalmology concepts by electronic systems : Adequacy of controlled medical terminologies. / Chiang, Michael; Casper, Daniel S.; Cimino, James J.; Starren, Justin.

In: Ophthalmology, Vol. 112, No. 2, 02.2005, p. 175-183.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chiang, Michael ; Casper, Daniel S. ; Cimino, James J. ; Starren, Justin. / Representation of ophthalmology concepts by electronic systems : Adequacy of controlled medical terminologies. In: Ophthalmology. 2005 ; Vol. 112, No. 2. pp. 175-183.
@article{2ac384fec167445eb30da92db4019307,
title = "Representation of ophthalmology concepts by electronic systems: Adequacy of controlled medical terminologies",
abstract = "Objective: To assess the adequacy of 5 controlled medical terminologies (International Classification of Diseases 9, Clinical Modification [ICD9-CM]; Current Procedural Terminology 4 [CPT-4]; Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine, Clinical Terms [SNOMED-CT]; Logical Identifiers, Names, and Codes [LOINC]; Medical Entities Dictionary [MED]) for representing concepts in ophthalmology. Design: Noncomparative case series. Participants: Twenty complete ophthalmology case presentations were sequentially selected from a publicly available ophthalmology journal. Methods: Each of the 20 cases was parsed into discrete concepts, and each concept was classified along 2 axes: (1) diagnosis, finding, or procedure and (2) ophthalmic or medical concept. Electronic or paper browsers were used to assign a code for every concept in each of the 5 terminologies. Adequacy of assignment for each concept was scored on a 3-point scale. Findings from all 20 case presentations were combined and compared based on a coverage score, which was the average score for all concepts in that terminology. Main Outcome Measures: Adequacy of assignment for concepts in each terminology, based on a 3-point Likert scale (0, no match; 1, partial match; 2, complete match). Results: Cases were parsed into 1603 concepts. SNOMED-CT had the highest mean overall coverage score (1.625±0.667), followed by MED (0.974±0.764), LOINC (0.781±0.929), ICD9-CM (0.280±0.619), and CPT-4 (0.082±0.337). SNOMED-CT also had higher coverage scores than any of the other terminologies for concepts in the diagnosis, finding, and procedure categories. Average coverage scores for ophthalmic concepts were lower than those for medical concepts. Conclusions: Controlled terminologies are required for electronic representation of ophthalmology data. SNOMED-CT had significantly higher content coverage than any other terminology in this study.",
author = "Michael Chiang and Casper, {Daniel S.} and Cimino, {James J.} and Justin Starren",
year = "2005",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.09.032",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "112",
pages = "175--183",
journal = "Ophthalmology",
issn = "0161-6420",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Representation of ophthalmology concepts by electronic systems

T2 - Adequacy of controlled medical terminologies

AU - Chiang, Michael

AU - Casper, Daniel S.

AU - Cimino, James J.

AU - Starren, Justin

PY - 2005/2

Y1 - 2005/2

N2 - Objective: To assess the adequacy of 5 controlled medical terminologies (International Classification of Diseases 9, Clinical Modification [ICD9-CM]; Current Procedural Terminology 4 [CPT-4]; Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine, Clinical Terms [SNOMED-CT]; Logical Identifiers, Names, and Codes [LOINC]; Medical Entities Dictionary [MED]) for representing concepts in ophthalmology. Design: Noncomparative case series. Participants: Twenty complete ophthalmology case presentations were sequentially selected from a publicly available ophthalmology journal. Methods: Each of the 20 cases was parsed into discrete concepts, and each concept was classified along 2 axes: (1) diagnosis, finding, or procedure and (2) ophthalmic or medical concept. Electronic or paper browsers were used to assign a code for every concept in each of the 5 terminologies. Adequacy of assignment for each concept was scored on a 3-point scale. Findings from all 20 case presentations were combined and compared based on a coverage score, which was the average score for all concepts in that terminology. Main Outcome Measures: Adequacy of assignment for concepts in each terminology, based on a 3-point Likert scale (0, no match; 1, partial match; 2, complete match). Results: Cases were parsed into 1603 concepts. SNOMED-CT had the highest mean overall coverage score (1.625±0.667), followed by MED (0.974±0.764), LOINC (0.781±0.929), ICD9-CM (0.280±0.619), and CPT-4 (0.082±0.337). SNOMED-CT also had higher coverage scores than any of the other terminologies for concepts in the diagnosis, finding, and procedure categories. Average coverage scores for ophthalmic concepts were lower than those for medical concepts. Conclusions: Controlled terminologies are required for electronic representation of ophthalmology data. SNOMED-CT had significantly higher content coverage than any other terminology in this study.

AB - Objective: To assess the adequacy of 5 controlled medical terminologies (International Classification of Diseases 9, Clinical Modification [ICD9-CM]; Current Procedural Terminology 4 [CPT-4]; Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine, Clinical Terms [SNOMED-CT]; Logical Identifiers, Names, and Codes [LOINC]; Medical Entities Dictionary [MED]) for representing concepts in ophthalmology. Design: Noncomparative case series. Participants: Twenty complete ophthalmology case presentations were sequentially selected from a publicly available ophthalmology journal. Methods: Each of the 20 cases was parsed into discrete concepts, and each concept was classified along 2 axes: (1) diagnosis, finding, or procedure and (2) ophthalmic or medical concept. Electronic or paper browsers were used to assign a code for every concept in each of the 5 terminologies. Adequacy of assignment for each concept was scored on a 3-point scale. Findings from all 20 case presentations were combined and compared based on a coverage score, which was the average score for all concepts in that terminology. Main Outcome Measures: Adequacy of assignment for concepts in each terminology, based on a 3-point Likert scale (0, no match; 1, partial match; 2, complete match). Results: Cases were parsed into 1603 concepts. SNOMED-CT had the highest mean overall coverage score (1.625±0.667), followed by MED (0.974±0.764), LOINC (0.781±0.929), ICD9-CM (0.280±0.619), and CPT-4 (0.082±0.337). SNOMED-CT also had higher coverage scores than any of the other terminologies for concepts in the diagnosis, finding, and procedure categories. Average coverage scores for ophthalmic concepts were lower than those for medical concepts. Conclusions: Controlled terminologies are required for electronic representation of ophthalmology data. SNOMED-CT had significantly higher content coverage than any other terminology in this study.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=13444287950&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=13444287950&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.09.032

DO - 10.1016/j.ophtha.2004.09.032

M3 - Article

C2 - 15691548

AN - SCOPUS:13444287950

VL - 112

SP - 175

EP - 183

JO - Ophthalmology

JF - Ophthalmology

SN - 0161-6420

IS - 2

ER -