Talk:ICD-10

Untitled
This page is exactly the same as List_of_ICD-10_codes, except the links don't go through. HoCkEy PUCK 01:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge - I agree that the content is much better on the page List_of_ICD-10_codes and its subpages, but this is the more obvious title - since the subject itself is a list, I think it would be fine to have a short intro paragraph that explains what ICD-10 is, than go ahead and provide the codes, without needing to have "List of" in the title. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 19:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kevinsamiam, RxHugo, Jonthanq, DeniseL20. Peer reviewers: Nhituta, Sherrydadouzi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merged
I merged it. I set the other page as the redirect. SadanYagci 21:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

ICD-10
Dear Colleague,

WHO has given permission to present ICD-10 in wikipedia. However no publisher may change content or structure of the classifcation.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ICD-10_codes shows the basic structure of ICD-10 and was set to be able to access the full ICD through links. Unfortunately you have used a wrong chapter numbering (A-Z instead of roman numbering) changing the structure. Chapters in several cases do not correspond to the first character of the code. I able to correct the titles of the chapters in part but the links have still to be reset.

Kind regards,

Robert Jakob

Medical Officer Classifications and Terminologies (CAT) Department of Measurement and Health Information Systems (MHI) Evidence and Information for Policy (EIP) World Health Organization 20, Avenue Appia 1211 Geneva 27 Switzerland web: 


 * I have renamed the pages listed at List of ICD-10 codes, so they now use the roman numerals. --Arcadian 10:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issue
I have looked at the page, and am of the opinion that the table can probably be used under the "list of facts" exception - you can't give an accurate representation of the material without listing it, and it seems that the WHO is more interested in having the stuff be correct than in having it protected. If people disagree, please make comments under this heading; if the WHO person is watching, please consider granting permission for distribution under the GFDL using the OTRS process, so that it's beyond doubt that we have the right to use this. --Alvestrand 23:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Revisions
Where do I find or access various revisions of ICD-10 to see what changes have been made and when. There does not appear to any reference to this in the Article? Jagra (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Subarticles all need leads
Per WP:LEAD, every article needs one. I stumbled upon one of the chapter subarticles and I had no clue what ICD-10 was or what I was looking at. I didn't even see a link back to this page except for a link under "see also" that redirected here. I hesitate to put intromissing templates on every single one but they need fixing. Even if they're two sentence leads saying "ICD-10 is a medical reference book that...Listings coded A00-A99 from chapter X are listed below." Oren0 (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 10 years late; but all the list articles for ICD-10 Chapters now have at least a basic lead. For anyone wanting to check, the chapters can be access quickly via . Little pob (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Validation of ICD-10 classification....????
--58.38.43.251 (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ICD-10+classification+validation&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--58.38.43.251 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ICD-10+classification+validity&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

Nomenclature...in ICD-10...???
--222.64.22.16 (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ICD+10+nomenclature&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.214.100 (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Food intolerance

--124.78.214.100 (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC) --124.78.214.100 (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * history - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ICD-9+nomenclature&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ICD-6+nomenclature&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

Identifier of ICD-10....????....A book or a document....???
See ISBN and Documentation --124.78.214.100 (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

--124.78.214.100 (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Standard_Book_Number&diff=343514890&oldid=343512743

--124.78.214.100 (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See the discussion at Talk:International Standard Book Number and Talk:Documentation

Usual confusion between modified ICD, as for the US, and the International version.
The text mentioning the 155000 codes has created quite some confusion. Indeed, reference is made to the US ICD-10CM. The edits to the article do clarify the difference now.

Regards

Robert Jakob jakobr at who.int WHO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icdmaat (talk • contribs) 17:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Subarticles all need serious work on links
Every chapter article for this work has severe problems when it comes to links. Tons of red links where no link is needed, repeated links instead of just the first occurrence, links to disambiguation pages (ex: embedded instead of embedded) and incorrect links (ex: eruption instead of eruption). I don't know who decided that every single word in an article should be a link, but that's not true at all. Please see Tutorial (Wikipedia links). -- Fyrefly (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sales pitch
This quote from the article sounds like something written by a software salesman:

"Although the undertaking can seem overwhelming, especially to small practices,[18] technology can be a big help. Practices should check with their EHR vendors to make sure they understand the data storage requirements for the new code set; seek online training available through association websites and software-based instruction; and invest in additional technology, such as patient kiosks, to boost productivity.[19]"

To me, this paraphrases as, "Don't worry about ICD-10 because (our inexpensive solution) solves all the problems you have." I work for a hospital and ICD-10 adoption is enormously expensive in technology, training, and procedural changes; and will have a much greater operating expense (than ICD-9) thereafter. Seems like this needs some balancing opinions or commentary. CoyneT talk 18:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

USA implementing ICD10 on October 1 2014
I'd like it if the article could be improved a lot by that date. Maybe it could even be the featured article that day... Hey, it doesn't hurt to dream, right?-- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 14:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Are the external links not spam?
None of the external links look like official sources, they just look like companies with ICD-10 related services that are using wikipedia for advertising. The first two links look suspicious but I want to point out that the third link is mostly advertisements.
 * ICD-10 - Complete Reference: There's no mention of who runs this.
 * Free ICD-10 codes online search and complete index based reference: There's no mention of who runs this. Also, it looks poorly made.
 * ICD-10 Codes Search and Crosswalk: if you type "diabetes" into the search bar and do a search, all you get is more ads. With some finagling you can get some codes, but is this really what wikipedia should be linking to?

All of this information is available here at a much more official source: ICD-10 Version:2015, and in fact is available right on wikipedia. Bryant.kou (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

There is now a fourth link, practice fusion, which has seemingly nothing to do with ICD-10 but to advertise services. Multiple links that are not advertising services are dead, for example, Bryant.kou (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ICD-10 Center - FAQ, implementation and transition
 * icd-10-resources
 * icd-10-transition

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on ICD-10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080917144534/http://www.dhhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080815a.html to http://www.dhhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080815a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Linking into Wikipedia by ICD10 code
Is there a way to link into wikipedia articles by ICD10 code? For example, for Protrusio acetabuli instead of externally linking to link by name is there a set of redirects or parser functions or similar that would allow for a link to something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICD10-M24.7? Tenbergen (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I'm aware. Be aware that because ICD-10 is a classification, rather than a nomenclature, some codes may be used on more than one article; for example a link in for J44.0 could feasibly point to chest infection COPD. Whilst it's possible to set up disambiguation pages for users searching on Wikipedia by ICD-10 codes; providing a lookup service  be outside of the permission granted by WHO to Wikipedia for "presenting" ICD-10. Little pob (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Issues
Note that a lot has changed since the introduction of the ICD-11 earlier this year. It needs to be said that the website links to the content of the WHO is no longer accessible. There is a need for a lot of work on this page. More information can be found at: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.39.177 (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. However, I have reverted your changes. First; on checking today (21/8/18), the online resources mentioned in the article are still available. &lt;aside>I have a vague recollection that the online ICD-10 browser was down for maintenance recently.&lt;/aside> Second; the current published timeline states ICD-11 has yet to be ratified, and is not expected to be used before Jan 2022. Third; this page is specifically about ICD-10 – it would be inappropriate to switch its focus to ICD-11. The bulk of our ICD-11 content is currently over at ICD; but will eventually be WP:SPLITOUT. Little pob (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Pharmacy Students: Proposed Wiki Edits
After reviewing the article, our small group would like to suggest and improve the following sections:

Introduction- adding citations and general grammatical changes

United States Section- Update the mortality and morbidity coding section in the U.S.

Considering addition of a “General Changes from ICD-9 CM” Section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinsamiam (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * our WP:Be bold guideline encourages editors to make their edits – and then see what sticks. To address your specific suggestions though:
 * Introduction- adding citations and general grammatical changes Please do. It'll be worth reading WP:LEAD if you intend to expand the article's introduction, also.
 * United States Section-Update the mortality and morbidity coding section in the U.S. If the information in the section is out of date, or otherwise incorrect. Then please correct (with citations).
 * Considering addition of a “General Changes from ICD-9 CM” Section The section on ICD-10 in the US is already twice the size of ICD-10's use in other countries. I would argue adding more information to this section would be WP:UNDUE. That said, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to add that information at ICD-10-CM, given the scope of that article. The ICD-10-CM article could do with some TLC from editors familiar with medical coding in the US – should your group be willing to do so. Little pob (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

 * Users Katertotz and Nhituta: the two sections below on style and plagiarism were added as top-level section headers, but they look very much like parts of this peer review which should be subsumed under it. I've taken the liberty of changing them from H2 to H4 headers.  This is what's called a technical TPO violation, as I should not be changing another editor's comments. However, these sections were confusing as top-level sections, and I think they work better this way.  If you disagree, feel free to revert this change.  Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?
For the most part the edits reflect a neutral point of view. In the new paragraph at the beginning of the US section, there seems to be a lot of mention of pros and cons. This paragraph might not be necessary, especially considering the section for the US is so long already. The morbidity data using ICD-9 is an interesting addition, and I wonder if there is info anywhere that discusses why it is still used. Overall really good work folks. MLauCP133 (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?
Each sentence that presents a new fact appears to be verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available to the public. Many of the sources seem to be from government or international organization's websites, which are definitely available for anyone with access to the interview to view and verify. Woozers93 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

New citations added were linked to pages from the CDC that were free to access, and are reliable news sources. Just as a side note, it would make it easier to find your groups added citations if you could put the names of all group members working on these edits in your proposed edit section. Latallah1212 (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style for articles? The edits for the most part are formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style for medicine-related articles. Section title is formatted correctly. However, use of the article "the" and "A" should standardize.Sherrydadouzi (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarism: There are a lot of missing citations for this wiki article. There needs to be citations for all the information on countries, including Brazil, Canada, France, Sweden, and Thailand. There needs to be a citation after each sentence for all of these, especially if you are including a statistic. You also need a citation for the 16,000 statistic, national adoptions, and for the last sentence. Also, as you go through the wiki article you will see citation needed, please add citations at all of these places. Rachaelgordon (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style? If not, specify....
After reading the edits made, it felt like there was a lot more room for improvement in terms of the manual of style. The manual emphasizes readability and ease of understanding. The United States portion of this article was very confusing for me to read. It said that the U.S. started using ICD-10 codes on Oct 1st, 2015 several times in the article. I feel that creating more of a storyline with the implementation of the system, it's current challenges and uses, and how it's different from other countries would make everything easier to understand.

As a budding healthcare professional, I was only able to somewhat grasp the concept of an ICD-10 code and why it's important. As a patient or a general layman, this article would not be a good first resource.Katertotz (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify….
Based on the edits that were added to the article, I do not see any signs of plagiarism or copyright violation. The information added was paraphrased well and citations were added after each addition. Nhituta (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)nhituta
 * Just curious: on what basis are you judging that there is no copyright violation? Eyeballing the language? Does your professor give you any tools for this?  Are you aware of the Wikipedia tools available designed specifically for the purpose? Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your question. Students were provided a training module to identify and avoid plagiarism and copyright violation. I reviewed each student's contribution through their history, contributions, and differences on their profile. I personally read through the citations that they referenced and compared their additions with their contributions. I did not use a plagiarism/copyright violation tool; however, based on your recommendation and using a tool, I did not see any of their edits queried. It is note-worthy to mention that the section regarding Canada's ICD-10 code use was queried, though this was not a current student's contribution. Are there any edits that you would reconsider? Thank you for your help!

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify….
I think that the overall tone of the article is neutral and that the group's specific contributions to the article reflected a neutral point of view. The only section that I believe could be improved is the 'Criticisms' section; there is some rhetoric used (e.g. 'absurd') that is opinionated and does not represent a universal view of the subject. I believe this group could greatly improve this article by rewriting that section to better reflect an unbiased point of view. Jennyzhou4 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The Russian version of this document, МКБ-10, is an awful pseudoscientific forgery
The Russian version of this document, МКБ-10 (see the talk page), is an awful pseudoscientific forgery of fascists. --VictorPorton (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)