Dataset Information

The novel and powerful ICD-11 classification system for neoplasm coding: a comparative study with the ICD-O.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) are both widely used global classification systems. In 2018, the initial release of the ICD-11 was published by the World Health Organization (WHO), integrating the morphology section of the ICD-O.

Methods

This paper aims to provide potential ICD-11 users with a profound understanding of the neoplasm classifications of the ICD-11 by analysing the differences and relationships between the ICD-11 and ICD-O in terms of the coding framework, compatibility and intelligence level.

Results

The ICD-11 and ICD-O have remarkable differences in coding structure. Compared to the ICD-O, the ICD-11 has the following advantages: adding histopathology to the stem codes, obtaining a meaningful minimum amount of information through stem codes for statistics, supporting the usage of ICD-O morphology categories and capturing clinical details via extension codes for multiaxial coding. In addition, the rich Foundation Component, linearization derived from the Foundation Component and updating mechanism all support the compatibility of the ICD-11 with other classification systems. Notably, the WHO provides terminology coding with a smart coding tool, and coding in the ICD-11 can draw on statistical codes and uniform resource identifiers (URIs) simultaneously.

Conclusions

The ICD-11 represents a novel classification system with distinguishing features that include facilitating statistics, multiaxial coding, coding granularity, compatibility and intelligence. These features enable the ICD-11 to be more powerful for neoplasm coding than the ICD-O and basically meet the needs of stakeholders.

SUBMITTER: Xu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9758819 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The novel and powerful ICD-11 classification system for neoplasm coding: a comparative study with the ICD-O.

Xu Yicong Y Zhou Jingya J Wang Yi Y

BMC medical informatics and decision making 20221216 1

<h4>Background</h4>The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O) are both widely used global classification systems. In 2018, the initial release of the ICD-11 was published by the World Health Organization (WHO), integrating the morphology section of the ICD-O.<h4>Methods</h4>This paper aims to provide potential ICD-11 users with a profound understanding of the neoplasm classifications of the ICD-11 by analysing the diff ...[more]

PMID: 36527027

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe study sought to assess the feasibility of replacing the International Classification of Diseases-Tenth Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) with the International Classification of Diseases-11th Revision (ICD-11) for morbidity coding based on content analysis.Materials and methodsThe most frequently used ICD-10-CM codes from each chapter covering 60% of patients were identified from Medicare claims and hospital data. Each ICD-10-CM code was recoded in the ICD-11, using postcoordination (combination of codes) if necessary. Recoding was performed by 2 terminologists independently. Failure analysis was done for cases where full representation was not achieved even with postcoordination. After recoding, the coding guidance (inclusions, exclusions, and index) of the ICD-10-CM and ICD-11 codes were reviewed for conflict.ResultsOverall, 23.5% of 943 codes could be fully represented by the ICD-11 without postcoordination. Postcoordination is the potential game changer. It supports the full representation of 8.6% of 943 codes. Moreover, with the addition of only 9 extension codes, postcoordination supports the full representation of 35.2% of 943 codes. Coding guidance review identified potential conflicts in 10% of codes, but mostly not affecting recoding. The majority of the conflicts resulted from differences in granularity and default coding assumptions between the ICD-11 and ICD-10-CM.ConclusionsWith some minor enhancements to postcoordination, the ICD-11 can fully represent almost 60% of the most frequently used ICD-10-CM codes. Even without postcoordination, 23.5% full representation is comparable to the 24.3% of ICD-9-CM codes with exact match in the ICD-10-CM, so migrating from the ICD-10-CM to the ICD-11 is not necessarily more disruptive than from the International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification to the ICD-10-CM. Therefore, the ICD-11 (without a CM) should be considered as a candidate to replace the ICD-10-CM for morbidity coding.

Project description:ObjectivesUnderstand the continuity and changes in headache not-otherwise-specified (NOS), migraine, and post-traumatic headache (PTH) diagnoses after the transition from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).BackgroundHeadache is one of the most commonly diagnosed chronic conditions managed within primary and specialty care clinics. The VHA transitioned from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM on October-1-2015. The effect transitioning on coding of specific headache diagnoses is unknown. Accuracy of headache diagnosis is important since different headache types respond to different treatments.MethodsWe mapped headache diagnoses from ICD-9-CM (FY 2014/2015) onto ICD-10-CM (FY 2016/2017) and computed coding proportions two years before/after the transition in VHA. We used queries to determine the change in transition pathways. We report the odds of ICD-10-CM coding associated with ICD-9-CM controlling for provider type, and patient age, sex, and race/ethnicity.ResultsOnly 37%, 58% and 34% of patients with ICD-9-CM coding of NOS, migraine, and PTH respectively had an ICD-10-CM headache diagnosis. Of those with an ICD-10-CM diagnosis, 73-79% had a single headache diagnosis. The odds ratios for receiving the same code in both ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM after adjustment for ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM headache comorbidities and sociodemographic factors were high (range 6-26) and statistically significant. Specifically, 75% of patients with headache NOS had received one headache diagnoses (Adjusted headache NOS-ICD-9-CM OR for headache NOS-ICD-10-CM = 6.1, 95% CI 5.89-6.32. 79% of migraineurs had one headache diagnoses, mostly migraine (Adjusted migraine-ICD-9-CM OR for migraine-ICD-10-CM = 26.43, 95% CI 25.51-27.38). The same held true for PTH (Adjusted PTH-ICD-9-CM OR for PTH-ICD-10-CM = 22.92, 95% CI: 18.97-27.68). These strong associations remained after adjustment for specialist care in ICD-10-CM follow-up period.DiscussionThe majority of people with ICD-9-CM headache diagnoses did not have an ICD-10-CM headache diagnosis. However, a given diagnosis in ICD-9-CM by a primary care provider (PCP) was significantly predictive of its assignment in ICD-10-CM as was seeing either a neurologist or physiatrist (compared to a generalist) for an ICD-10-CM headache diagnosis.ConclusionWhen a veteran had a specific diagnosis in ICD-9-CM, the odds of being coded with the same diagnosis in ICD-10-CM were significantly higher. Specialist visit during the ICD-10-CM period was independently associated with all three ICD-10-CM headaches.

Dataset Information

The novel and powerful ICD-11 classification system for neoplasm coding: a comparative study with the ICD-O.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The novel and powerful ICD-11 classification system for neoplasm coding: a comparative study with the ICD-O.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets