PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12119089

Diagnostic codes in dentistry--definition, utility and developments to date.

Abstract

Diagnostic codes are computer-readable descriptors of patients' conditions contained in computerized patient records. The codes uniquely identify the diagnoses or conditions identified at initial or follow-up examinations that are otherwise written in English or French on the patient chart. Dental diagnostic codes would allow dentists to access information on the types and range of conditions they encounter in their practices, enhance patient communication, track clinical outcomes and monitor best practices. For the profession, system-wide use of the codes could provide information helpful in understanding the oral health of Canadians, demonstrate improvements in oral health, track best practices system-wide, and identify and monitor the progress of high-need groups in Canada. Different systems of diagnostic codes have been implemented by program managers in Germany, the United Kingdom and North America. In Toronto, the former North York Community Dental Services developed and implemented a system that follows the logic used by the Canadian Dental Association for its procedure codes. The American Dental Association is now preparing for the release of SNODENT codes. The addition of diagnostic codes to the service codes already contained in computerized patient records could allow easier analysis of the rich evidence available on the oral health and oral health care of Canadians, thereby enhancing our ability to continuously improve patient care.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

James L Leake. Diagnostic codes in dentistry--definition, utility and developments to date.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12119089/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A comparative evaluation of full-text, concept-based, and context-sensitive search.

OBJECTIVES: Study comparatively (1) concept-based search, using documents pre-indexed by a conceptual hierarchy; (2) context-sensitive search, using structured, labeled documents; and (3) traditional full-text search. Hypotheses were: (1) more contexts lead to better retrieval accuracy; and (2) adding concept-based search to the other searches would improve upon their baseline performances. DESIGN: Use our Vaidurya architecture, for search and retrieval evaluation, of structured documents classified by a conceptual hierarchy, on a clinical guidelines test collection. MEASUREMENTS: Precision computed at different levels of recall to assess the contribution of the retrieval methods. Comparisons of precisions done with recall set at 0.5, using t-tests. RESULTS: Performance increased monotonically with the number of query context elements. Adding context-sensitive elements, mean improvement was 11.1% at recall 0.5. With three contexts, mean query precision was 42% +/- 17% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31% to 53%); with two contexts, 32% +/- 13% (95% CI, 27% to 38%); and one context, 20% +/- 9% (95% CI, 15% to 24%). Adding context-based queries to full-text queries monotonically improved precision beyond the 0.4 level of recall. Mean improvement was 4.5% at recall 0.5. Adding concept-based search to full-text search improved precision to 19.4% at recall 0.5. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated usefulness of concept-based and context-sensitive queries for enhancing the precision of retrieval from a digital library of semi-structured clinical guideline documents. Concept-based searches outperformed free-text queries, especially when baseline precision was low. In general, the more ontological elements used in the query, the greater the resulting precision.

Abstracting and Indexing↗

Improvements to the Red List Index.

The Red List Index uses information from the IUCN Red List to track trends in the projected overall extinction risk of sets of species. It has been widely recognised as an important component of the suite of indicators needed to measure progress towards the international target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. However, further application of the RLI (to non-avian taxa in particular) has revealed some shortcomings in the original formula and approach: It performs inappropriately when a value of zero is reached; RLI values are affected by the frequency of assessments; and newly evaluated species may introduce bias. Here we propose a revision to the formula, and recommend how it should be applied in order to overcome these shortcomings. Two additional advantages of the revisions are that assessment errors are not propagated through time, and the overall level extinction risk can be determined as well as trends in this over time.

Abstracting and Indexing↗