ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Coding rules for uncertain and "ruled out" diagnoses in ICD-10 and ICD-11.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence for automated ICD-10 coding: a systematic review of multi-label text classification in clinical narratives.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- Characteristics of influenza, SARS-CoV-2, and RSV surveillance systems that utilise ICD-coded data: a systematic review.Journal of global health · 2025Pooled it
- Identifying diabetic ketoacidosis encounters at diagnosis among children with type 1 diabetes in claims data.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2026Article
- Congenital anomaly registers in Australia: A national challenge.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2026Article
- Ozone exposure is positively correlated with the occurrence of Kawasaki disease in Chinese children.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Observational
- Beware the Little Foxes that Spoil the Vines: Small Inconsistencies in Clinical Data Can Distort Machine Learning Findings.Fortune journal of health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11) has significantly improved the ability to navigate coding challenges beyond prior iterations of the ICD. Commonly encountered sources of complexity in clinical documentation include coding of uncertain and "ruled out" diagnoses. Assessing official international guidelines and rules, this paper documents extensive variation across countries in existing practices for coding and reporting unconfirmed and "ruled out" clinical concepts in ICD-10 (and modifications thereof). The design of ICD-11 is intended to mitigate these coding challenges by introducing postcoordination, expanding the range of codable clinical concepts, and offering clearer guidance in the ICD-11 Reference Guide. ICD-11 offers substantial progress towards more precise capture of uncertain and "ruled out" diagnoses, including international consensus on coding rules for these historically challenging clinical concepts. However, we identify the need for further clarification of the concepts of "provisional diagnosis" and "differential diagnosis."
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.