ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Quantifying coding integrity and reliability of ICD-11 MMS for rare disease registration: a case study of the Chinese rare disease catalogue.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEpidemiological data on rare diseases (RDs) affect the accurate scientific assessment of these diseases and lead to many issues in policy-making, healthcare systems, and legislation. The coding system is crucial for accurately identifying and calculating the incidence rates of each RD. This study focuses on the effectiveness of collecting RD data via the ICD-11 and examines whether the ICD-11 can fully support RD statistics. The findings of this study should provide a foundation for replacing the ICD-10 with the ICD-11.
methodsThis study included 121 RDs from the first "Rare Disease Catalogue"in China. The diseases were recoded independently by two experts in the ICD-11 MMS. A comparative analysis was conducted on the distributions of chapters, code types, and index terms in the ICD-10 and ICD-11 MMS.
resultsThis study analysed 121 rare diseases (RDs) from China's first Rare Disease Catalogue. These RDs mapped to 204 ICD-10 codes (1.4% of all codes), including 76 (37.3%) non-index terms, and to 171 ICD-11 MMS codes (0.96% of all codes). The proportion of RD codes was significantly lower in ICD-11 than in ICD-10 (0.96% vs. 1.4%, P < 0.001), indicating greater dilution of RDs in ICD-11. All ICD-11 MMS codes were indexed (100% vs. 62.7% in ICD-10, P < 0.001), and 51 ICD-11 MMS codes (29.8%, P < 0.001) provided more detailed classifications. When using the ICD-11 to code RDs for subsequent statistical analyses, it is recommended that a network system of RD index terms be established in advance.
conclusionThe ICD-11 can replace the ICD-10 for coding RDs. However, many RD terms do not have accurate codes and must be uniquely identified with URIs in the ICD-11. To ensure the reliability of RD-related data, establishing a local RD database for reporting data via the ICD-11 in China is essential.
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.