ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025
An examination of ambulatory care code specificity utilization in ICD-10-CM compared to ICD-9-CM: implications for ICD-11 implementation.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2025. 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.
- Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools are superior to ICD-10 codes in capturing clinically relevant information.Pediatric research · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe ICD-10-CM classification system contains more specificity than its predecessor ICD-9-CM. A stated reason for transitioning to ICD-10-CM was to increase the availability of detailed data. This study aims to determine whether the increased specificity contained in ICD-10-CM is utilized in the ambulatory care setting and inform an evidence-based approach to evaluate ICD-11 content for implementation planning in the United States. MATERIALS AND
methodsDiagnosis codes and text descriptions were extracted from a 25% random sample of the IQVIA Ambulatory EMR-US database for 2014 (ICD-9-CM, n = 14 327 155) and 2019 (ICD-10-CM, n = 13 062 900). Code utilization data was analyzed for the total and unique number of codes. Frequencies and tests of significance determined the percentage of available codes utilized and the unspecified code rates for both code sets in each year.
resultsOnly 44.6% of available ICD-10-CM codes were used compared to 91.5% of available ICD-9-CM codes. Of the total codes used, 14.5% ICD-9-CM codes were unspecified, while 33.3% ICD-10-CM codes were unspecified. DISCUSSION: Even though greater detail is available, a 108.5% increase in using unspecified codes with ICD-10-CM was found. The utilization data analyzed in this study does not support a rationale for the large increase in the number of codes in ICD-10-CM. New technologies and methods are likely needed to fully utilize detailed classification systems.
conclusionThese results help evaluate the content needed in the United States national ICD standard. This analysis of codes in the current ICD standard is important for ICD-11 evaluation, implementation, and use.
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.