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 Annu Symp Proc. 2005; 2005: 918.

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

Recommended Citation

Chen, Jung-Wei; Flaitz, Catherine; and Johnson, Todd, "Comparison of accuracy captured by different controlled languages in oral pathology diagnoses." (2005). Journal Articles. 4.
https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/uthdb_docs/4