Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32607494›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2020

A narrative review of the impact of the transition to ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM/PCS.

Sheila V Kusnoor, Mallory N Blasingame, Annette M Williams, Spencer J DesAutels, Jing Su, Nunzia Bettinsoli Giuse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Risk of Duplicate ICD Codes for Orthopedic and Injury Related Research.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Sheila V KusnoorCenter for Knowledge Management, Strategy and Innovation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Mallory N BlasingameCenter for Knowledge Management, Strategy and Innovation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Annette M WilliamsCenter for Knowledge Management, Strategy and Innovation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Spencer J DesAutelsCenter for Knowledge Management, Strategy and Innovation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Jing SuCenter for Knowledge Management, Strategy and Innovation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Nunzia Bettinsoli GiuseCenter for Knowledge Management, Strategy and Innovation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe United States transitioned to the tenth version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) system (ICD-10) for mortality coding in 1999 and to the International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification and Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-CM/PCS) on October 1, 2015. The purpose of this study was to conduct a narrative literature review to better understand the impact of the implementation of ICD-10/ICD-10-CM/PCS. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe searched English-language articles in PubMed, Web of Science, and Business Source Complete and reviewed websites of relevant professional associations, government agencies, research groups, and ICD-10 news aggregators to identify literature on the impact of the ICD-10/ICD-10-CM/PCS transition. We used Google to search for additional gray literature and used handsearching of the references of the most on-target articles to help ensure comprehensiveness.

resultsImpact areas reported in the literature include: productivity and staffing, costs, reimbursement, coding accuracy, mapping between ICD versions, morbidity and mortality surveillance, and patient care. With the exception of morbidity and mortality surveillance, quantitative studies describing the actual impact of the ICD-10/ICD-10-CM/PCS implementation were limited and much of the literature was based on the ICD-10-CM/PCS transition rather than the earlier conversion to ICD-10 for mortality coding. DISCUSSION: This study revealed several gaps in the literature that limit the ability to draw reliable conclusions about the overall impact, positive or negative, of moving to ICD-10/ICD-10-CM/PCS in the United States.

conclusionThese knowledge gaps present an opportunity for future research and knowledge sharing and will be important to consider when planning for ICD-11.

Indexed as

claimsclinical codingdiagnosis codesInternational Classification of Diseasespopulation surveillance

Identifiers

PMID32607494
PMCPMC7309233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.