Abstract
The coding of information in the computer representation of clinical trials is essential both for the rationalisation of the activities involved in the production of therapeutic information for evidence-based decision support and for the integration of the messages produced by these activities with clinical information and electronic patient record systems. There is no standard coding system available, however, so building on existing evaluations, we performed a simple semi-quantitative evaluation of ICD-10, CDAM, MEDDRA, MESH, READ, SNOMED and UMLS to provide objective criteria for the choice of a coding system. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for four clinical trials recorded in TriSum constituted the corpus of evaluation texts. Criteria included coding coverage, size, integration and language coverage. The results of the comparison lead us to choose SNOMED as the most appropriate coding system for our needs. The absence of a European Medical Language System project is observed, as is the need for combinatorial as opposed to enumerative systems.
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
