ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Making Genomic Data Actionable in Electronic Health Records: Practical Viewpoint on Standards, Governance, and Implementation.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- A governance framework for medical code standardization to enhance multi-institutional data quality.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- The European Health Data Space and biobanking in Europe: synergies, tensions and the future governance of data-driven health research.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Review
- Data Management in Biobanking: Strategies, Challenges, and Future Directions.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2024Review
- The Immunopeptidomics Ontology (ImPO).Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2024Article
- Improving Diagnostics with Deep Forest Applied to Electronic Health Records.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveLogical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) is a universal standard for identifying laboratory tests and clinical observations. It facilitates a smooth information exchange between hospitals, locally and internationally. Although it offers immense benefits for patient care, LOINC coding is complex, resource-intensive, and requires substantial domain expertise. Our objective was to provide training and evaluate the performance of LOINC mapping of 20 pathogens from 53 hospitals participating in the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (NNDSS).
methodsComplete mapping codes for 20 pathogens (nine bacteria and 11 viruses) were requested from all participating hospitals to review between January 2014 and December 2016. Participating hospitals mapped those pathogens to LOINC terminology, utilizing the Regenstrief LOINC mapping assistant (RELMA) and reported to the NNDSS, beginning in January 2014. The mapping problems were identified by expert panels that classified frequently asked questionnaires (FAQs) into seven LOINC categories. Finally, proper and meaningful suggestions were provided based on the error pattern in the FAQs. A general meeting was organized if the error pattern proved to be difficult to resolve. If the experts did not conclude the local issue's error pattern, a request was sent to the LOINC committee for resolution.
resultsA total of 53 hospitals participated in our study. Of these, 26 (49.05%) used homegrown and 27 (50.95%) used outsourced LOINC mapping. Hospitals who participated in 2015 had a greater improvement in LOINC mapping than those of 2016 (26.5% vs. 3.9%). Most FAQs were related to notification principles (47%), LOINC system (42%), and LOINC property (26%) in 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively.
conclusionsThe findings of our study show that multiple stage approaches improved LOINC mapping by up to 26.5%.
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.