4.5 Article

Updating Allergy and/or Hypersensitivity Diagnostic Procedures in the WHO ICD-11 Revision

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2016.01.015

关键词

Allergy; Classification; Diagnostic procedures; International Classification of Diseases (ICD); World Health Organization (WHO)

资金

  1. Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The classification of allergy and/or hypersensitivity conditions for the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11 provides the appropriate corresponding codes for allergic diseases, assuming that the final diagnosis is correct. This classification should be linked to in vitro and in vivo diagnostic procedures. Considering the impact for our specialty, we decided to review the codification of these procedures into the ICD aiming to have a baseline and to suggest changes and/or submit new proposals. For that, we prepared a list of the relevant allergy and/or hypersensitivity diagnostic procedures that health care professionals are dealing with on a daily basis. This was based on the main current guidelines and selected all possible and relevant corresponding terms from the ICD-10 (2015 version) and the ICD-11 beta phase foundation (June 2015 version). More than 90% of very specific and important diagnostic procedures currently used by the allergists' community on a daily basis are missing. We observed that some concepts usually used by the allergist community on a daily basis are not fully recognized by other specialties. The whole scheme and the correspondence in the ICD-10 (2015 version) and ICD-11 foundation (June 2015 version) provided us a big picture of the missing or imprecise terms and how they are scattered in the current ICD-11 framework, allowing us to submit new proposals to increase the visibility of the allergy and/or hypersensitivity conditions and diagnostic procedures. (C) 2016 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据