Comparison of Accuracy Captured By Different Controlled Languages In Oral Pathology Diagnoses

Authors

Jung-Wei Chen, Dental Branch, University of Texas Health Science Center of Houston, TX, USA, School of Health Information science, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, USA
Catherine Flaitz, Dental Branch, University of Texas Health Science Center of Houston, TX, USAFollow
Todd Johnson, School of Health Information science, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, USAFollow

Publication Date

1-1-2005

Journal

AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings

Abstract

This project was comparing the accuracy of capturing the oral pathology diagnoses among different coding systems. 55 diagnoses were selected for comparison among 5 coding systems. The results of accuracy in capturing oral diagnoses are: AFIP (96.4%), followed by Read 99 (85.5%), SNOMED 98 (74.5%), ICD-9 (43.6%), and CDT-3 (14.5%). It shows that the currently used coding systems, ICD-9 and CDT-3, were inadequate, whereas the AFIP coding system captured the majority of oral diagnoses. In conclusion, the most commonly used medical and dental coding systems lack terms for the diagnosis of oral and dental conditions.

Keywords

Diagnosis, Oral, Humans, Pathology, Oral, Vocabulary, Controlled

PMID

16779205

PMCID

PMC1560686

PubMedCentral® Posted Date

January 2005

PubMedCentral® Full Text Version

Post-print

Recommended Citation

Chen, Jung-Wei; Flaitz, Catherine; and Johnson, Todd, "Comparison of Accuracy Captured By Different Controlled Languages In Oral Pathology Diagnoses" (2005). Faculty, Staff and Student Publications. 4.
https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/uthdb_docs/4