Talk:International Classification of Diseases

ICD-CM is public domain - NCHS email verification

The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) is based on the World Health Organization's Ninth Revision, International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9). ICD-9-CM is the official system of assigning codes to diagnoses and procedures associated with hospital utilization in the United States. The ICD-9 is used to code and classify mortality data from death certificates.

The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are the U.S. governmental agencies responsible for overseeing all changes and modifications to the ICD-9-CM.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/otheract/icd9/abticd9.htm

---

The following email from NCHS verifies that we may use it how we wish:

---

Subject: RE: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/mail/mail.htm Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 07:37:32 -0400 From: "NCHSED" <nchsed@cdc.gov> To: petersam

All of NCHS data is in Public Domain. You may use it how it wish. All NCHS asks is that you cite us as your source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/howto/howto.htm

---

Original Message-----

From: Chase, Johncene M. On Behalf Of NCHS QUERY Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 4:16 PM To: NCHSED Subject: FW: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/mail/mail.htm

---

Original Message-----

From: srv2@cdc.gov Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 3:24 PM To: NCHS QUERY Subject: Data posted to form 1 of http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/mail/mail.htm

comments:

Is there any restrictions to the use of ICD-9 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd9.htm as a categorization of medical/clinical topics in a public on-line internet encyclopedia?

Could part or all of it be reprinted?

Thank you, peter sam www.wiki.x.io

---

Possible choice for Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/categorizations

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/categorizations Petersam 19:38, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ICD-9

I work in the health care industry in the US, so I'm familiar with ICD-9-CM, but don't really know very much about ICD-10. The current article states that "ICD-10-CM codes are not currently valid for any purpose or uses," but I was under the impression that ICD-10-CM codes are used in the US for mortality or death certificate purposes. Can someone confirm this and update the article?

It appears that ICD-9-CM V and E codes have been turned into ICD-10-CM S, T, V, W, X, and Y codes. If this is the case, I think that might deserve a mention.

Also, ICD-9-CM has both diag and procedure codes. I don't see anything written about ICD-10-CM procedure codes. If the procedure codes still exist, they need to be included in this article. --Pagrashtak 6 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)

ICD-9 and DSM-IV?

Are the codes used in the DSM-IV-TR and the ICD-9 the same? I noticed that the DSM codes were removed from the mental disorder pages, and I was going to replace some until I realized that they are the same for several disorders.

Clean up

This article needs to be cleaned up. There are many places where information is repeated under a difference subheading, or conflicted. For example, the article states that the US Public Health Service published ICD-9-CM under one subhead and three paragraphs later it's the Dept of Health and Human Services. This needs to be fixed/clarified. Also, the paragraphs and list under the first subhead (International Statistical...) are repeated almost verbatim under the History section. As I've only skimmed the article, I'm sure that there are other areas that need improvement.

Would someone with more background in the subject give this a shot? JordeeBec 14:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start taking a look at it. Also, considering the ridiculously long title and the actual "what links here" page, it looks like a great deal of articles connect here through the ICD-9 and ICD-10 redirects. I've worked in the industry for years, and I've never called it an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems code. I don't see many people writing articles that way, so maybe we should consider moving this to a less hard-to-find location. I suggest moving it to "ICD" and making the current ICD page "ICD (disambiguation)". It's going to be some work and I don't want to piss anyone off, so I'll post the suggestion to the requested moves page later and we'll see what everyone thinks. Kafziel 19:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This article still needs a lot of work - it is very US-centric, for what is an international system, which is produced and maintained by an international inter-governmental body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.131.2 (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems → ICD – "ICD" is the most common title for this system of codes (and with a title as long as that one, it's no mystery why). Most of the articles that link to the page right now do so through redirects at ICD-9 and ICD-10. People will be much more likely to use the correct page name if it is intuitive. I've already moved the contents of ICD to ICD (disambiguation); there were only two articles linked to from there, including this one, and the other one has far fewer links.

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nominator Kafziel 04:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I prefer for Wikipedia to spell-out acronyms, and so does WP:NAME#Prefer_spelled-out_phrases_to_acronyms. Then again, I only support moving articles to acronyms when the controlling organization actually says the acronym means nothing, like SAT does now. --Davidstrauss 09:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the MoS link you have there precisely backs up my reasons for wanting to move the page. It is known almost exclusively as ICD and it is widely known and used in that form. Even the publishers of the guides to the codes title their books "ICD". Kafziel 12:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A bit of evidence for my claim comes from the good old Google test. 98,600 hits for the spelled out version versus 2,440,000 for ICD-9 and 2,160,000 ICD-10. Does four million hits help support my request? Kafziel 12:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It does for me. Moved. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 10:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hang on a minute! I strongly oppose the move to ICD. ICD is an acronym with a number of common meanings - two of them in medicine, indeed. It's a bit rich to move the page without waiting a decent interval for the results of the discussion. If you must move it, at least insert a reference to ICD (disambiguation)! The 4-million Google hits argument actually supports ICD-9 and ICD-10, not ICD. Snalwibma 12:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This page covers both ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, so those google hits support it. They don't have their own pages. This page wasn't moved in some "high handed" way; it sat at Requested Moves for several days. Every other page that had been there the same amount of time has also been acted upon.

The other meaning for ICD isn't nearly as significant. Moving this here fixed hundreds of redirects and will be even more useful in the future. Kafziel 12:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Confusing sentences

Commonly disputed by healthcare providers as billing code and not representative of true clinical outcomes

Huh? -- Beland 01:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a go at this Claus Diff 09:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The original revisions of ICD also did not provide for classification of operative or diagnostic procedures.

Which, exactly? -- Beland 01:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

...the international (and thus original revisions in this context) ICDs do not provide procedure codes Claus Diff 09:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is still very US and DSM oriented and needs to be rewritten Icdmaat (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

2011 or 2015?

I see an anonymous editor changed the planned release date for ICD11 from 2011 to 2015 without any explanation or comment, so I put a citation needed tag after the date. The cited source speculates that it will be released in 2011, but I guess it might have been pushed back since then, a possibility that is supported by a google search for "ICD11 2015". --Slashme (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely 2015, see WHO pages. The source cited older dates that were outdated already at the time of the interview. Icdmaat (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Has the formal name been shortened?

The documents at the links show a name of "International Classification of Diseases", rather than the long forms on the articles. For example "International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10)" and "International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9)" sinneed (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I share this curiosity. Should the article be moved to International Classification of Diseases, the title as currently reflected in the intro? "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems" is ungainly and not easily extraced from the initialism "ICD" that appears in usage with the likes of ICD-10. ENeville (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove links to commercial websites. Why?

Is there rules regarding links to commercial web sites? Why did Jason64 do the edit "Remove links to commercial websites" on the 2010-06-16 ? There are so many other pages regarding technology and products that include links to commercial suppliers that I don't see what the problem is. tygrus (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Gross copyvio

this edit was a blatant wp:Copyvio by a one-time editor, a verbatim copy of Appendix L from this cited source. I'll blank the section pending further action.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ICD-10-AM addition?

I was looking through and wasn't able to find a section/article on the Australian Modification Version of the ICD-10. I suggest an addition/summary of the differences with the ICD-10 and ICD-10AM as Australias coding systems are fairly well used within the health information services sector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phu Lam (talk • contribs) 00:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Updating Diagnostic Guidelines for ICD-11

Hello!! I am student at the University of Florida and as part of my grade in one of my psychology courses our professor has assigned us to learn and participate in editing a wikipedia page. Because Wikipedia plays a vital role in disseminating psychological science to the masses. I would like to add the four major concerns found by researchers about the ICD-10 and the eight major recommendations for the classification of eating and feeding disorders found in the Eating Disorders Review volume 23 Issue 6. Any input or help would be greatly appreciated!! --Anajean93 (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

History and usage in the United States needs updated implementation date for ICD-10

Information under the subheading: History and usage in the United States. Needs to be updated, the implementation date changed from 10/1/13 to 10/1/14 back in August of 2012, below I've included an article that mentions this.

This information should be added:

http://www.healthcare-informatics.com/article/breaking-news-cms-confirms-icd-10-transition-delay-2014

HHS combines the announcement of an administrative simplification change with confirmation of the ICD-10 transition date for 2014

The Department of Health and Human Services on Aug. 24, in announcing an administration simplification change around the creation of a unique health plan identifier (HPID), also confirmed through that final rule, the delay to Oct. 1, 2014 for compliance with the transition to the ICD-10 coding system, from the ICD-9 coding system. More information on both of these areas can be found at

http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/fact_sheets.asp http://www.healthcare-informatics.com/article/breaking-news-cms-confirms-icd-10-transition-delay-2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.4.240 (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501034205/http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/internet/en/document/standards+and+data+submission/standards/classification+and+coding/codingclass_icd10 to http://www.cihi.ca/cihi-ext-portal/internet/en/document/standards+and+data+submission/standards/classification+and+coding/codingclass_icd10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

ICD-11 section plag?

The first three paras of the ICD-11 section are lifted straight from this EC page. Not sure if this counts as plag or not, could someone please take a look. Sincerely, Marksomnian. (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I've started ICD-11

I've made an attempt on starting ICD-11. It's not much, but we have to start somewhere. This is the next big standard in health care, so obviously it needs an article. Feel free to help me out. See also Talk:ICD-11. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "International Classification of Disease" buidhe 05:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

---

International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems → International Classification of Diseases – The current title is indeed the official name of the ICD-10, but naming the article as such goes against WP:COMMON: over 5.1 million hits for "International Classification of Diseases" versus 424.000 hits for "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems".

With the upcoming ICD-11, the WHO appears to prefer the simpler form, "International Classification of Disease", e.g. here. The ICD-11 Reference Guide adds four words to it: "International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems".

The WHO is passionate about developing standardized terms and definitions, but seems less concerned about standardizing the terms of their standardizations, see also this e-mail I've prepared. Pretty strange. Anyway, I believe the title of this article should be International Classification of Diseases, per WP:COMMON, and because of the commonly used "ICD" acronym. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

At first blush, this seems like a good suggestion, but I shall cogitate on the matter some as there are probably considerations that don't occur to me right off. I agree that WHO could improve it's naming conventions as their various names for different iterations/versions/aspects of the ICD are confusing.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 11:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Cogitation completed. ;o) I reviewed several web pages and documents at https://www.who.int/classifications/. I found that throughout the WHO website the term used over and over is "International Classification of Diseases". I searched the entire site for the exact phrase, "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems". That phrase appears only twice—in two versions of a document,, both of which contain the same citation, which is where the term appears. Thus, it appears that sometime after 1994 (I am not sure when, although more digging could probably determine the year), WHO decided to omit the word, "statistical" and the phrase, "and Related Health Problems". So, it makes sense that the authors of this article titled it as they did, since that was the initial name for ICD-10. However, by at least 2004 (the year of the first version of the document I mentioned a moment ago), the name had changed to simply "International Classification of Diseases".   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Indicate if you Support or Oppose the name change (move) below

• Support - for the reasons outlined above.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 13:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Both trivially more concise and the current common name. The discussion above basically reinvents wp:NAMECHANGES. I note also that while the target has no significant history that needs preserving, it is interesting that it shows a previous move to ICD and back again, following an informal RM above. Hopefully this more formal (but still appalling) RM will lead to stability. Andrewa (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Andrewa: "The discussion above basically reinvents wp:NAMECHANGES." → I do not understand. ¶ "Hopefully this more formal (but still appalling) RM ..." → Why is it "appalling"? Thank you   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at a few other RMs. Wikipedia has some well-established procedures and practices, supported by policies and guidelines. We encourage people to be bold rather than read all of the relevant material before doing anything. But the flipside of this is, someone needs to then clean up the messes they create. I'm just trying to encourage a bit more research on the part of the participants in this RM and in previous and future move discussions here, to cut down this overhead. But obviously not succeeding, so far. Andrewa (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Andrewa: I also don't get it.
"I note also that while the target has no significant history that needs preserving..."
Well, if that would be problem: 1, 2, 3, 4.
Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Glad you want to understand. For a start, the links that you have given to the web archive are irrelevant. Under our copyleft license, we are responsible for maintaining our own record of contributions. But it's not a problem in this case, and that's the point, and the closer will be an experienced hand and will understand what I've said. Andrewa (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment after the close

Even though this article is on my watchlist, I just saw this. Something other than WP:Common name to keep in mind is WP:NCMED. I'll alert WP:Med to this move discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Does your mention of WP:NCMED indicate agreement or disagreement with the move? // This discussion was posted on the WP:MED Talk page earlier.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That discussion is not about titling the article, though. I don't have a strong opinion on the title. I simply felt that other WP:Med editors should be alerted to this matter in case they have opinions on the title change. I think that more WP:Med editors should be involved in any title change like this one. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Total number of diseases? For the intro?

or is there any other wikipedia article where that is mentioned? There are about 26,000 diseases as per Malacards: The Human Disease Database of which 450 Brain related health issues. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5764584/ That's very do-able. At least it's not millions or endless as many people might think. This gives hope and puts things in perspective. Empowered by Ai, we might reason better and see more how things are linked and obtain insights. I remember from a seminar at the EU Commission Directorate General SANTE / EuHealthUnionPriority5 Brain related health issues - that there are 450 as per List of mental disorders and https://www.brainfacts.org/diseases-and-disorders/neurological-disorders-az#:~:text=Access%20a%20list%20of%20more,%2C%20diagnosis%2C%20and%20potential%20therapies .

Thy, greetings from building the #EuHealthUnion with the renewed and reinforced EU Commission Directorate General SANTE, SvenAERTS (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)