{"title":"国际疾病分类》第十一次修订版在肿瘤分类方面的改进:与《国际疾病分类》第十版中文临床修订版的系统比较研究。","authors":"Yicong Xu, Jingya Zhou, Hongxia Li, Dong Cai, Huanbing Zhu, Shengdong Pan","doi":"10.2196/52296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision (ICD-11) improved neoplasm classification.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to study the alterations in the ICD-11 compared to the Chinese Clinical Modification of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10-CCM) for neoplasm classification and to provide evidence supporting the transition to the ICD-11.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We downloaded public data files from the World Health Organization and the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. The ICD-10-CCM neoplasm codes were manually recoded with the ICD-11 coding tool, and an ICD-10-CCM/ICD-11 mapping table was generated. The existing files and the ICD-10-CCM/ICD-11 mapping table were used to compare the coding, classification, and expression features of neoplasms between the ICD-10-CCM and ICD-11.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ICD-11 coding structure for neoplasms has dramatically changed. It provides advantages in coding granularity, coding capacity, and expression flexibility. In total, 27.4% (207/755) of ICD-10 codes and 38% (1359/3576) of ICD-10-CCM codes underwent grouping changes, which was a significantly different change (χ<sup>2</sup><sub>1</sub>=30.3; P<.001). Notably, 67.8% (2424/3576) of ICD-10-CCM codes could be fully represented by ICD-11 codes. Another 7% (252/3576) could be fully described by uniform resource identifiers. The ICD-11 had a significant difference in expression ability among the 4 ICD-10-CCM groups (χ<sup>2</sup><sub>3</sub>=93.7; P<.001), as well as a considerable difference between the changed and unchanged groups (χ<sup>2</sup><sub>1</sub>=74.7; P<.001). Expression ability negatively correlated with grouping changes (r=-.144; P<.001). In the ICD-10-CCM/ICD-11 mapping table, 60.5% (2164/3576) of codes were postcoordinated. The top 3 postcoordinated results were specific anatomy (1907/3576, 53.3%), histopathology (201/3576, 5.6%), and alternative severity 2 (70/3576, 2%). The expression ability of postcoordination was not fully reflected.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ICD-11 includes many improvements in neoplasm classification, especially the new coding system, improved expression ability, and good semantic interoperability. The transition to the ICD-11 will inevitably bring challenges for clinicians, coders, policy makers and IT technicians, and many preparations will be necessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":51757,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Journal of Medical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10960217/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improvements in Neoplasm Classification in the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision: Systematic Comparative Study With the Chinese Clinical Modification of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision.\",\"authors\":\"Yicong Xu, Jingya Zhou, Hongxia Li, Dong Cai, Huanbing Zhu, Shengdong Pan\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/52296\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision (ICD-11) improved neoplasm classification.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to study the alterations in the ICD-11 compared to the Chinese Clinical Modification of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10-CCM) for neoplasm classification and to provide evidence supporting the transition to the ICD-11.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We downloaded public data files from the World Health Organization and the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. The ICD-10-CCM neoplasm codes were manually recoded with the ICD-11 coding tool, and an ICD-10-CCM/ICD-11 mapping table was generated. The existing files and the ICD-10-CCM/ICD-11 mapping table were used to compare the coding, classification, and expression features of neoplasms between the ICD-10-CCM and ICD-11.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ICD-11 coding structure for neoplasms has dramatically changed. It provides advantages in coding granularity, coding capacity, and expression flexibility. In total, 27.4% (207/755) of ICD-10 codes and 38% (1359/3576) of ICD-10-CCM codes underwent grouping changes, which was a significantly different change (χ<sup>2</sup><sub>1</sub>=30.3; P<.001). Notably, 67.8% (2424/3576) of ICD-10-CCM codes could be fully represented by ICD-11 codes. Another 7% (252/3576) could be fully described by uniform resource identifiers. The ICD-11 had a significant difference in expression ability among the 4 ICD-10-CCM groups (χ<sup>2</sup><sub>3</sub>=93.7; P<.001), as well as a considerable difference between the changed and unchanged groups (χ<sup>2</sup><sub>1</sub>=74.7; P<.001). Expression ability negatively correlated with grouping changes (r=-.144; P<.001). In the ICD-10-CCM/ICD-11 mapping table, 60.5% (2164/3576) of codes were postcoordinated. The top 3 postcoordinated results were specific anatomy (1907/3576, 53.3%), histopathology (201/3576, 5.6%), and alternative severity 2 (70/3576, 2%). The expression ability of postcoordination was not fully reflected.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ICD-11 includes many improvements in neoplasm classification, especially the new coding system, improved expression ability, and good semantic interoperability. The transition to the ICD-11 will inevitably bring challenges for clinicians, coders, policy makers and IT technicians, and many preparations will be necessary.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51757,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interactive Journal of Medical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10960217/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interactive Journal of Medical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/52296\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interactive Journal of Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/52296","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Improvements in Neoplasm Classification in the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision: Systematic Comparative Study With the Chinese Clinical Modification of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision.
Background: The International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision (ICD-11) improved neoplasm classification.
Objective: We aimed to study the alterations in the ICD-11 compared to the Chinese Clinical Modification of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10-CCM) for neoplasm classification and to provide evidence supporting the transition to the ICD-11.
Methods: We downloaded public data files from the World Health Organization and the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. The ICD-10-CCM neoplasm codes were manually recoded with the ICD-11 coding tool, and an ICD-10-CCM/ICD-11 mapping table was generated. The existing files and the ICD-10-CCM/ICD-11 mapping table were used to compare the coding, classification, and expression features of neoplasms between the ICD-10-CCM and ICD-11.
Results: The ICD-11 coding structure for neoplasms has dramatically changed. It provides advantages in coding granularity, coding capacity, and expression flexibility. In total, 27.4% (207/755) of ICD-10 codes and 38% (1359/3576) of ICD-10-CCM codes underwent grouping changes, which was a significantly different change (χ21=30.3; P<.001). Notably, 67.8% (2424/3576) of ICD-10-CCM codes could be fully represented by ICD-11 codes. Another 7% (252/3576) could be fully described by uniform resource identifiers. The ICD-11 had a significant difference in expression ability among the 4 ICD-10-CCM groups (χ23=93.7; P<.001), as well as a considerable difference between the changed and unchanged groups (χ21=74.7; P<.001). Expression ability negatively correlated with grouping changes (r=-.144; P<.001). In the ICD-10-CCM/ICD-11 mapping table, 60.5% (2164/3576) of codes were postcoordinated. The top 3 postcoordinated results were specific anatomy (1907/3576, 53.3%), histopathology (201/3576, 5.6%), and alternative severity 2 (70/3576, 2%). The expression ability of postcoordination was not fully reflected.
Conclusions: The ICD-11 includes many improvements in neoplasm classification, especially the new coding system, improved expression ability, and good semantic interoperability. The transition to the ICD-11 will inevitably bring challenges for clinicians, coders, policy makers and IT technicians, and many preparations will be necessary.