Abstract
ObjectiveTo compare consistency of coding among professional SNOMED CT coders representing three commercial providers of coding services when coding clinical research concepts with SNOMED CT. DesignA sample of clinical research questions from case report forms (CRFs) generated by the NIH-funded Rare Disease Clinical Research Network (RDCRN) were sent to three coding companies with instructions to code the core concepts using SNOMED CT. The sample consisted of 319 question/answer pairs from 15 separate studies. The companies were asked to select SNOMED CT concepts (in any form, including post-coordinated) that capture the core concept(s) reflected in the question. Also, they were asked to state their level of certainty, as well as how precise they felt their coding was. MeasurementsBasic frequencies were calculated to determine raw level agreement among the companies and other descriptive information. Krippendorff’s alpha was used to determine a statistical measure of agreement among the coding companies for several measures (semantic, certainty, and precision). ResultsNo significant level of agreement among the experts was found. ConclusionThere is little semantic agreement in coding of clinical research data items across coders from 3 professional coding services, even using a very liberal definition of agreement.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
