ArticleAdvances in health information science and practice2025
A Transformative Innovation to Clinical Coding for Better Data and Less Burden.
Article in Advances in health information science and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The importance of codes for documenting healthcare concepts has expanded from a historical need to collect statistics to today's wide array of clinical and other secondary uses. The most deeply embedded system for coding diagnoses is the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Classification of Diseases (ICD). WHO's eleventh revision, ICD-11, was evaluated to determine how best to meet the needs of stakeholders concerned about clinical quality, healthcare decision-making, and other secondary use cases. Methods: This study explored the capability of ICD-10-CM, the standard ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics (ICD-11-MMS), and an enhanced ICD-11-MMS prototype (ICD-11-CCL) to represent clinical patient profiles for two natural clinical language scenarios. Systems were evaluated for granularity, comprehensiveness, accuracy, precision, relevancy, and their capability to provide user-friendly coding support. Results: Both the standard and enhanced ICD-11-MMS produced code clusters that captured more clinical details and insight than ICD-10-CM's codes. However, ICD-11-MMS was less comprehensive than ICD-11-CCL and introduced occasional new inaccuracies. Unlike ICD-10-CM and ICD-11-MMS, ICD-11-CCL enabled clinicians to designate their clinical perspectives directly. While ICD-11-MMS produced numerous synonymous code clusters, the enhanced syntax of ICD-11-CCL resulted in a unique code cluster for each scenario. Conclusions: Adoption of an enhanced ICD-11-MMS such as ICD-11-CCL could provide clinically nuanced data to support important secondary data applications more effectively than standard ICD-11-MMS, while retaining ICD-11-MMS's capability to support international comparative analyses such as mortality and morbidity statistics. With automated coding tools, enhanced ICD-11-MMS could also reduce the burden on humans to select, review, memorize or decipher codes. Enhanced ICD-11-MMS represents a substantial improvement over customized modifications of ICD-10 and, with further development and testing, could be a viable option for future adoption.
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.