Xu Yicong, Zhou Jingya, Li Hongxia, Cai Dong, Zhu Huanbing, Pan Shengdong
Medical Records Room, Department of Medical Administration, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Department of Medical Records, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Interact J Med Res. 2024 Mar 8;13:e52296. doi: 10.2196/52296.
The International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision (ICD-11) improved neoplasm classification.
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.
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.
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=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=93.7; P<.001), as well as a considerable difference between the changed and unchanged groups (χ=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.
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.
《国际疾病分类》第十一版(ICD - 11)改进了肿瘤分类。
我们旨在研究ICD - 11与《国际疾病分类第十版中国临床修订本》(ICD - 10 - CCM)在肿瘤分类方面的差异,为向ICD - 11过渡提供支持证据。
我们从世界卫生组织和中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会下载了公共数据文件。使用ICD - 11编码工具对ICD - 10 - CCM肿瘤编码进行手动重新编码,并生成ICD - 10 - CCM/ICD - 11映射表。利用现有文件和ICD - 10 - CCM/ICD - 11映射表比较ICD - 10 - CCM和ICD - 11之间肿瘤的编码、分类及表达特征。
ICD - 11的肿瘤编码结构发生了显著变化。它在编码粒度、编码能力和表达灵活性方面具有优势。ICD - 10编码中共有27.4%(207/755)、ICD - 10 - CCM编码中38%(1359/3576)的编码分组发生了变化,这是一个显著差异(χ = 30.3;P <.001)。值得注意的是,67.8%(2424/3576)的ICD - 10 - CCM编码可以由ICD - 11编码完全表示。另外7%(252/3576)可以通过统一资源标识符完全描述。ICD - 11在ICD - 10 - CCM的4个组之间的表达能力有显著差异(χ = 93.7;P <.001),在变化组和未变化组之间也有相当大的差异(χ = 74.7;P <.001)。表达能力与分组变化呈负相关(r = -.144;P <.001)。在ICD - 10 - CCM/ICD - 11映射表中,60.5%(2164/3576)的编码为后组配。前三位的后组配结果是特定解剖部位(1907/3576,53.3%)、组织病理学(201/3576,5.6%)和替代严重程度2(70/3576,2%)。后组配的表达能力未得到充分体现。
ICD - 11在肿瘤分类方面有诸多改进,尤其是新的编码系统、增强的表达能力和良好语义互操作性。向ICD - 11过渡将不可避免地给临床医生、编码人员、政策制定者和信息技术人员带来挑战,需要进行诸多准备。