Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29067166›Full record

ArticleHealth information science and systems2017

The potential adoption benefits and challenges of LOINC codes in a laboratory department: a case study.

Chukwuemeka Uchegbu, Xia Jing

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health information science and systems, 2017. 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
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. New EHR certification requirements and their association with duplicate tests and images.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Article
  4. Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINCDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Semantic data interoperability, digital medicine, and e-health in infectious disease management: a review.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2019
    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

2 authors.

Chukwuemeka UchegbuDepartment of Social and Public Health, College of Health Sciences and Professions, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701 USA.
Xia JingDepartment of Social and Public Health, College of Health Sciences and Professions, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1916-4588

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLogical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) are a standard for identifying and reporting laboratory investigations that were developed and are maintained by the Regenstrief Institute. LOINC codes have been adopted globally by hospitals, government agencies, laboratories, and research institutions. There are still many healthcare organizations, however, that have not adopted LOINC codes, including rural hospitals in low- and middle- income countries. Hence, organizations in these areas do not receive the benefits that accrue with the adoption of LOINC codes.

methodsWe conducted a literature search by utilizing PubMed, CINAHL, Google Scholar, ACM Digital Library, and the Biomed Central database to look for existing publications on the benefits and challenges of adopting LOINC. We selected and reviewed 16 publications and then conducted a case study via the following steps: (1) we

resultsBased on the literature review, we noted that LOINC codes' ability to improve laboratory results' interoperability has been recognized broadly. LOINC-coded laboratory results can improve patients' safety due to their consistent meaning as well as the related reduction of duplicate lab tests, easier assessment of workloads in the laboratory departments, and accurate auditing of laboratory accounts. Further, the adoption of LOINC codes may motivate government agencies to upgrade hospitals' infrastructures, which could increase the possibility of international recognition of laboratory test results from those hospitals over the long term. Meanwhile, a lack of LOINC codes in paper format and a lack of LOINC codes experts are major challenges that may limit LOINC adoption.

conclusionIn this paper, we intend to provide a snapshot of the possible usage of LOINC codes in rural hospitals in low- and middle-income countries via simpler and detailed use cases. Our analysis may aid policymakers to gain a deeper understanding of LOINC codes in regard to clinical, administrative, and operational aspect and to make better-informed decisions in regard to LOINC codes adoption. The use case analysis also can be used by information system designers and developers to reference workflow within a laboratory department. We recognize that this manuscript is only a case study and that the exact steps and workflows may vary in different laboratory departments; however, the core steps and main benefits should be consistent.

Indexed as

Health policyHospital administrationHospital-laboratories/standardsLogical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC)

Identifiers

PMID29067166
PMCPMC5636728

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.