Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19074298›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

The adequacy of ICNP version 1.0 as a representational model for electronic nursing assessment documentation.

Patricia C Dykes, Hyeon-eui Kim, Denise M Goldsmith, Jeeyae Choi, Kumiko Esumi, Howard S Goldberg

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. ICNPReports (MDPI) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Patricia C DykesClinical Informatics Research & Development, Partners HealthCare, 93 Worcester St, Wellesley, MA 02481, USA.
Hyeon-eui Kim
Denise M Goldsmith
Jeeyae Choi
Kumiko Esumi
Howard S Goldberg
Mass General Brigham · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USNortheastern University · USSpaulding Rehabilitation Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the adequacy of the International Classification of Nursing Practice (1) (ICPN) Version 1.0 as a representational model for nursing assessment documentation. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS: To identify representational requirements of nursing assessments, the authors mapped key concepts and semantic relations extracted from standardized and local nursing admission assessment documentation forms/templates and inpatient admission assessment records to the ICNP. Next, they expanded the list of ICNP semantic relations with those obtained from the admission assessment forms/templates. The expanded ICNP semantic relations were then validated against the semantic relations identified from an additional set of admission assessment records and a set of 300 randomly selected North American Nursing Diagnosis Association defining characteristic phrases. The concept coverage of the ICNP was evaluated by mapping the concepts extracted from these sources to the ICNP concepts. The UMLS Methathesaurus was then used to map concepts without exact matches to other American Nursing Association (ANA) recognized terminologies.

resultsThe authors found that along with the 30 existing ICNP semantic relations, an additional 17 are required for the ICNP to function as a representational model for nursing assessment documentation. Eight hundred and five unique assessment concepts were extracted from all sources. Forty-three percent of these unique assessment concepts had exact matches in the ICNP. An additional 20% had matches in the ICNP classified as narrower, broader, or "other." Of the concepts without exact matches in the ICNP, 81% had exact matches found in other ANA recognized terminologies.

conclusionsThe broad concept coverage and the logic-based structure of the ICNP make it a flexible and robust standard. The ICNP provides a framework from which to capture and reuse atomic level data to facilitate evidence-based practice.

Indexed as

Vocabulary, ControlledEvidence-Based NursingModels, TheoreticalNursing AssessmentNursing RecordsSemantics

Identifiers

PMID19074298
PMCPMC2649316
OpenAlexW2154918651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.