Brown Steven H, Rosenbloom S Trent, Bauer Brent A, Wahner-Roedler Dietlind, Froehling David A, Bailey Kent R, Lincoln Michael J, Montella Diane, Fielstein Elliot M, Elkin Peter L
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007 Oct 11;2007:75-9.
Two candidate terminologies to support entry of general medical data are SNOMED CT and MEDCIN. We compare the ability of SNOMED CT and MEDCIN to represent concepts and interface terms from a VA general medical examination template.
We parsed the VA general medical evaluation template and mapped the resulting expressions into SNOMED CT and MEDCIN. Internists conducted double independent reviews on 864 expressions. Exact concept level matches were used to evaluate reference coverage. Exact term level matches were required for interface terms.
Sensitivity of SNOMED CT as a reference terminology was 83% vs. 25% for MEDCIN (p<0.001). The sensitivity of SNOMED CT as an interface terminology was 53% vs. 7% for MEDCIN (P< 0.001).
The content coverage of SNOMED CT as a reference terminology and as an interface terminology outperformed MEDCIN. We did not evaluate other aspects of interface terminologies such as richness of clinical linkages.
支持录入普通医学数据的两种候选术语是医学系统命名法临床术语（SNOMED CT）和医学分类编码系统（MEDCIN）。我们比较了SNOMED CT和MEDCIN表示退伍军人事务部（VA）普通医学检查模板中的概念和接口术语的能力。
我们解析了VA普通医学评估模板，并将结果表达式映射到SNOMED CT和MEDCIN中。内科医生对864个表达式进行了两次独立评审。使用精确的概念级别匹配来评估参考覆盖率。接口术语需要精确的术语级别匹配。
SNOMED CT作为参考术语的敏感度为83%，而MEDCIN为25%（p<0.001）。SNOMED CT作为接口术语的敏感度为53%，而MEDCIN为7%（P<0.001）。
SNOMED CT作为参考术语和接口术语的内容覆盖率优于MEDCIN。我们没有评估接口术语的其他方面，如临床联系的丰富性。
