Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35581649›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022

Postcoordination of codes in ICD-11.

Kristy Mabon, Olafr Steinum, Christopher G Chute

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. ICD-11 "by the people for the people": The open feedback proposal platform.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Coding rules for uncertain and "ruled out" diagnoses in ICD-10 and ICD-11.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

3 authors.

Kristy MabonCanadian Institute for Health Information, 495 Richmond Road, Suite 600, Ottawa, ON, K2A 4H6, Canada. kmabon@cihi.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-2054-5679
Olafr SteinumNordic Centre for Classifications in Health Care, Rörviksvägen 19 SE-45197, Uddevalla, Sweden.
Christopher G ChuteDivision of General Internal Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing, Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, Johns Hopkins University, 2024 E Monument St, Suite 1-200, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A new coding feature introduced with ICD-11, the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), is postcoordination, which supports combining (linking) two or more codes into a cluster that describes a clinical concept. Postcoordination allows for coded data to be reported to a greater level of specificity than was possible in previous version of ICD. The linked codes are kept together in a cluster when submitted for reporting. This article presents background detail on the postcoordination feature in ICD and the postcoordination tool. Also presented are several examples that demonstrate the flexibility that ICD-11 provides for enriching coded health information.

Indexed as

International Classification of DiseasesHumansClassificationICD11International classification of diseasesPostcoordination

Identifiers

PMID35581649
PMCPMC9112606

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.