ArticleYeungnam University journal of medicine2019
Computer-based clinical coding activity analysis for neurosurgical terms.
Article in Yeungnam University journal of medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It is not possible to measure how much activity is required to understand and code a medical data. We introduce an assessment method in clinical coding, and applied this method to neurosurgical terms. Methods: Coding activity consists of two stages. At first, the coders need to understand a presented medical term (informational activity). The second coding stage is about a navigating terminology browser to find a code that matches the concept (code-matching activity). Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine - Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) was used for the coding system. A new computer application to record the trajectory of the computer mouse and record the usage time was programmed. Using this application, we measured the time that was spent. A senior neurosurgeon who has studied SNOMED CT has analyzed the accuracy of the input coding. This method was tested by five neurosurgical residents (NSRs) and five medical record administrators (MRAs), and 20 neurosurgical terms were used. Results: The mean accuracy of the NSR group was 89.33%, and the mean accuracy of the MRA group was 80% ( Conclusion: We proposed a method to analyze the clinical coding process. Through this method, it was possible to accurately calculate the time required for the coding. In neurosurgical terms, NSRs had shorter time to complete the coding and higher accuracy than MRAs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.