Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24551411›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2013

Psychological assessment instruments: a coverage analysis using SNOMED CT, LOINC and QS terminology.

Piper A Ranallo, Terrence J Adam, Katherine J Nelson, Robert F Krueger, Martin LaVenture, Christopher G Chute

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The use of SNOMED CT, 2013-2020: a literature review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
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.

Piper A RanalloInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN;
Terrence J AdamInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; ; College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN;
Katherine J NelsonSchool of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN;
Robert F KruegerPsychology Department, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN;
Martin LaVentureMinnesota Department of Health, St Paul, MN;
Christopher G ChuteDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

Funding

University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UMN CTSI)KL2TR000113 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI BLAZAR, BRUCE R · 2012 to 2015
$5.4M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000113
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychometric instruments, inventories, surveys, and questionnaires are widely accepted tools in the field of behavioral health. They are used extensively in primary and clinical research, patient care, quality measurement, and payor oversight. To accurately capture and communicate instrument-related activities and results in electronic systems, existing healthcare standards must be capable of representing the full range of psychometric instruments used in research and clinical care. Several terminologies and controlled vocabularies contain representations of psychological instruments. While a handful of studies have assessed the representational adequacy of terminologies in this domain, no study to date has assessed content coverage. The current study was designed to fill this gap. Using a sample of 63 commonly used instruments, we found no concept in any of the three terminologies evaluated for more than half of all instruments. Of the three terminologies studied, SNOMED CT (Standard Nomenclature of Medicine - Clinical Terms) had the greatest breadth, but least granular coverage of all systems. While SNOMED CT contained concepts for over one third (36%) of the instrument classes in this sample, only 11% of the actual instruments were represented in SNOMED CT. LOINC (Logical Observation Identifiers, Names, and Codes), on the other hand, was able to represent instruments with the greatest level of granularity of the three terminologies. However, LOINC had the poorest coverage, covering fewer than 8% of the instruments in our sample. Given that instruments selected for this study were selected on the basis of their status as gold standard measures for conditions most likely to present in clinical settings, we believe these results overestimate the actual coverage provided by these terminologies. The results of this study demonstrate significant gaps in existing healthcare terminologies vis-à-vis psychological instruments and instrument-related procedures. Based on these findings, we recommend that systematic efforts be made to enhance standard healthcare terminologies to provide better coverage of this domain.

Indexed as

Vocabulary, ControlledHumansLogical Observation Identifiers Names and CodesPsychologyPsychometricsSystematized Nomenclature of Medicine

Identifiers

PMID24551411
PMCPMC3900148

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.