↓ Skip to main content

ICD-11, ICHI und SNOMED CT – was bedeuten die Systematiken für E‑Health-Anwendungen?

Overview of attention for article published in Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
ICD-11, ICHI und SNOMED CT – was bedeuten die Systematiken für E‑Health-Anwendungen?
Published in
Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00103-018-2759-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sylvia Thun, Heike Dewenter

Abstract

Medical documentation is no longer used primarily for administrative processes or healthcare billing, but for the entire electronic health record with accompanying eHealth use cases. It shall be examined to what extent classifications such as the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11) and the International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI), in comparison to the international reference terminology SNOMED CT, meet the requirements of current eHealth applications and ensure interoperability. The strengths and weaknesses of ICD-11 and ICHI are highlighted in terms of literature, contextual mapping within the international patient summary, telemedicine applications and the use in IT standards, such as HL7 in comparison to SNOMED CT. The whole range of medical terminology is not covered by ICHI and ICD-10, but with SNOMED CT, because ICD-11 and ICHI may be used in strict limitations to annotate procedures and diagnosis. A sample value set (n = 30) shows high mapping equivalence in SNOMED CT. In the literature, ICD-11 to SNOMED CT mappings are described as complex and error-prone. In terms of content expressivity and international usability, the potential of SNOMED CT in eHealth applications can be considered more favorable than ICD-11 or ICHI, even considering the original scope of these classifications, diagnoses and procedures. ICHI may even be recommended for specific use cases (e. g. statistics).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 9 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Computer Science 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 10 28%
Unknown 9 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 October 2018.
All research outputs
#4,020,664
of 23,083,773 outputs
Outputs from Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz
#170
of 943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,638
of 331,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz
#8
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,083,773 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 943 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.