Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR Awards, New Junior Editors, and more. Read the latest AJNR updates

Research Article

ICD-10: History and Context

J.A. Hirsch, G. Nicola, G. McGinty, R.W. Liu, R.M. Barr, M.D. Chittle and L. Manchikanti
American Journal of Neuroradiology April 2016, 37 (4) 596-599; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4696
J.A. Hirsch
aFrom the Department of Radiology (J.A.H., R.W.L., M.D.C.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for J.A. Hirsch
G. Nicola
bDepartment of Radiology (G.N.), Hackensack Radiology Group, University Medical Center, River Edge, New Jersey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for G. Nicola
G. McGinty
cDepartment of Radiology (G.M.), Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for G. McGinty
R.W. Liu
aFrom the Department of Radiology (J.A.H., R.W.L., M.D.C.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for R.W. Liu
R.M. Barr
dMecklenburg Radiology Associates (R.M.B.), Charlotte, North Carolina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for R.M. Barr
M.D. Chittle
aFrom the Department of Radiology (J.A.H., R.W.L., M.D.C.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for M.D. Chittle
L. Manchikanti
eDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine (L.M.), Pain Management Center of Paducah, University of Louisville, Paducah, Kentucky.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for L. Manchikanti
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

SUMMARY: In recent months, organized medicine has been consumed by the anticipated transition to the 10th iteration of the International Classification of Disease system. Implementation has come and gone without the disruptive effects predicted by many. Despite the fundamental role the International Classification of Disease system plays in health care delivery and payment policy, few neuroradiologists are familiar with the history of its implementation and implications beyond coding for diseases.

ABBREVIATIONS:

CM
Clinical Modification
CMS
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
CPT
Current Procedural Terminology
ICD
International Classification of Disease
RUC
Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee
WHO
World Health Organization

The International Classification of Disease (ICD) system was created for the accurate tracking of diseases within a population. Across the years, it has become an integral part of the payment infrastructure of the US health care system along with the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) coding system for medical procedures. As our knowledge of disease advances and the US health care system payment policy evolves from volume to value, so must the ICD system. Now that ICD-10 is finally implemented after 2 congressionally legislated delays, the physician community remains wary of potential upheaval related to complex changes required for billing systems. We believe a review of the history of the International Classification of Disease system will be useful to the practicing neuroradiologist.

History

Pre-ICD-10.

Some scholars track the origin of ICD to 1763. The French physician and botanist Dr François Bossier de Sauvages de Lacroix developed a categorization of 10 distinct classes of diseases, which were further divided into 2400 unique diseases.1 Sauvages de Lacroix was a contemporary and friend of the Swedish naturalist Carl Von Linné, considered the father of modern taxonomy. His classification system, built on earlier work by the English physician Thomas Sydenham, was similar to methods used by botanists at the time. Recognizing the importance of disease classification, the first International Statistical Congress held in Brussels in 1853 appointed Jacob Marc d'Espine and William Farr to develop a system of classifying causes of mortality that could be used across borders and languages.2 This was the genesis of what became known as the “International List of Causes of Death.” History will prove the sagacity of these early thought leaders. In 1893, Jacques Bertillon, a Parisian statistician, and his committee established the first “International List of Causes of Death.”3 At around that time, the “International List of Causes of Death” was presented in the United States at the International Statistical Institute, and in 1898, various countries in North America, including the United States, adopted this system.4 Across time, this “International List of Causes of Death” was updated and published about once per decade in 1900, 1910, 1920, 1929, and 1938.5

The many twists and turns taken by this process during the half-century described are beyond the intended scope of this article. Suffice it to say that challenges were raised to the development of a reporting system for morbidity. In 1948, the World Health Organization (WHO) took charge of the classification system, which was expanded the following year to include coding for causes of morbidity in addition to mortality. The system was rechristened the International Classification of Disease system.2,4 Under the auspices of the WHO, ICD development continued in a more predictable manner. The first 5 versions of the ICD system were each entirely contained within a single volume. That volume included an alphabetic index and a tabular list. By the sixth revision, the coding system included morbidity and mortality designations and required 2 volumes. Most important, ICD-6 expanded to include a section on psychiatric disorders. This sixth version was now called the Manual of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death (http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/70934/2/ICD_10_1967_v1_eng.pdf). Revisions have continued on an approximately decade-by-decade basis under the WHO, and the seventh and eight revisions were published in 1957 and 1968.3

In what could be called a parallel effort, the United States Public Health Service adapted the ICD to index hospital records and classify surgical procedures (ICDA) and published this system in 1962. The seventh edition of the ICD, therefore, expanded to include materials thought to be necessary for categorizing needs for hospitals. The Public Health Service went on to publish an eighth revision of the ICD, specifically focused on the unique needs of the United States known as ICDA-8. It had additional focus on morbidity and mortality reporting.3

The ICD-9 was published in 1977 by the Department of Knowledge Management and Sharing of the World Health Organization. ICD-9 was an important transition to increased granularity with 4-digit-level categories and a variety of optional 5-digit subdivisions. It was also pivotal in moving the system out of the WHO once ICD became a part of the public domain. ICD-9-Clinical Modification (CM) was the next expansion in the United States. The intention was to allow diagnostic coding of inpatient, outpatient, and physician office (nonfacility) use. It was developed by the National Center for Health Statistics. The CM expansion provided an opportunity to capture enhanced morbidity data and to update more frequently. This system is updated on October 1 of each year. ICD-9-CM was by now a 3-volume set with the first 2 volumes pertaining to diagnostic codes and the third containing procedural codes, though the latter never gained the popularity and widespread use in the United States of those developed through the Current Procedural Terminology process. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the National Center for Health Statistics both contribute to the oversight of the ICD-9-CM.3 In 1983, the Inpatient Prospective Payment System was adopted to pay for hospital care in the Medicare program, which insures the elderly and those with chronic disease. ICD-9-CM volumes 1, 2, and 3 were used for assigning cases to the Diagnoses-Related Groups used to derive payment amounts.

The Tenth Edition.

Neuroradiologists might be surprised to learn that work on ICD-10 began >30 years ago. Historically, updates occurred approximately once per decade. The initial effort on ICD-10 concluded in 1992. The ICD-10-CM was then introduced for its annual process of review in 1992. ICD-10 is much more granular than ICD-9, with an expansion from 17,000 codes to approximately 155,000. US-based providers might be further surprised to find out that many other countries transitioned to some form of ICD-10 many years ago. For example, Canada introduced a modified system, ICD-10-CA, in 2000. The international version of ICD-10 is used in >100 countries for cause-of-death reporting and statistics. In 2003, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 named ICD-9 as the code set for reporting diagnoses and procedures in electronic administrative transactions.6 On January 16, 2009, the US Department of Health and Human Services published a regulation requiring the replacement of ICD-9 with ICD-10 as of October 1, 2013.

ICD-10-CM uses the same basic hierarchical structure as ICD-9-CM. The first 3 digits represent common traits, with each subsequent character providing greater specificity. ICD-10-CM is alphanumeric, with a possible 7 digits of specificity as opposed to the 5 digits of the ICD-9. An oddity is that the letter U is the only letter not used.7 Other noteworthy changes include the addition of information relevant to ambulatory and managed care and greatly expanded injury codes that reflect the site of injury. Given the dramatic changes occurring within organized medicine in 2013, some authors called for a delay in the implementation of ICD-10 from the original planned date of October 1, 2013.8 This idea gained greater traction when the American Medical Association formally adopted a policy that favored delaying implementation.8,9 The original implementation date was extended by the Department of the Health and Human Services in the latter half of 2012 to October 1, 2014.10 There was continued discomfort regarding implementation of ICD-10 by the 2014 date. The Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 was primarily considered in the context of providing a temporary patch for the sustainable growth rate.11,12 Embedded within that legislation was a further delay in the implementation of ICD-10 until October 1, 2015.12 Finally October 1, 2015, was the date that ICD-10-CM went live in the United States.

Relationship to Current Procedural Terminology

Procedural reimbursement in the United States involves a complex interplay between the American Medical Association and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In the mid-1960s, the American Medical Association, working with multiple major medical specialty societies, developed an iterative coding system for describing medical procedures and services. This system was termed the Current Procedural Terminology coding system.13 The first edition of CPT (1966) primarily described surgical procedures. CPT when first established did not have a relationship with reimbursement. With time, CPT became critical not only to procedural reimbursement but also, assuming additional roles in administrative management, tracking new procedures and evolving aspects of pay for performance as we describe below.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act required the Department of Health and Human Services to name national standards, including specifying code sets, for electronic transactions of health care information. This resulted in an expansion of CPT beyond procedure and service reporting into the tracking of new services and procedures, as well as facilitating the reporting of measures useful for pay for performance. The revised CPT codes are accepted by Medicare for use in claims processing and have been incorporated wholesale into the coding system of Medicare, designated the Health Care Common Procedure Coding System.13

CPT is a work product that is owned by the American Medical Association. A concurrent activity is known as the American Medical Association Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee. This committee is colloquially known as the RUC, and it attempts to provide a scale of relativity across the range of medical procedures in making recommendations for reimbursement values to CMS.14,15 CMS representatives attend the RUC meetings, and CMS considers the recommendations of the RUC before ultimately deciding the reimbursement for medical services. The American Society of Neuroradiology is represented at both the Current Procedural Terminology and the Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committees.

Discussion

After several legislatively mandated delays, ICD-10-CM went live on October 1, 2015. Implementation is costly but, nonetheless, required.16 Our belief is that ultimately the enhanced granularity will be useful not only for disease tracking but also for serving as necessary infrastructure for reimbursement of value over volume in the evolving US health care delivery system. The evolving payment paradigm requires sophisticated tracking tools such as ICD-10 to accurately gauge the effectiveness of the treating provider or treating institution, as well as tracking costs of these therapies. Without an increase in the granularity of disease classification, bending the US health care system cost curve by rewarding value over volume would not be possible. With that scenario in mind, coding mistakes are a real and a potentially costly possibility. While CMS has reluctantly agreed to allow a 1-year grace period for coding mistakes, there is no guarantee that commercial carriers will follow suit.

As ICD-10-CM granularity has increased, a seldom-discussed but realistic question is the ongoing relevance of CPT. With >150,000 distinct codes, including those that describe procedures, one could imagine a circumstance in which sufficient granularity would be available to raise questions about the need for CPT codes. As outlined above, Current Procedural Terminology arose to meet a specific need in the mid-1960s. The CPT system is embedded in calculations of the CMS of relativity in the reimbursement system we currently use.

Additionally, providers need to be very aware of “high-risk” codes. These are ICD-9 codes that map to multiple different ICD-10 variations. In fact, there are >3600 instances in which ICD-10-CM codes can map to multiple different ICD-9-CM codes. Conversely, and more unusual, there are >500 codes that are more specific in the ICD-9-CM than in ICD-10-CM.17

Organized medicine often faces unfunded mandates. This one is noteworthy because of its cost. A 2008 study18 predicted that implementation of ICD-10 would cost typical practices between $83,292 and $2.7 million, depending on the size of the practice, though a more recent study nearly tripled those estimates.16 In addition, cash flow disruptions have been predicted to range from $50,000 to $15 million for large practices.18,19 Large hospital systems can spend vast sums of money implementing a new electronic medical record.20 Moreover, while information technology has the power to deliver powerful improvement in the delivery of medical care, it could also be accused of depersonalizing that care. We make these points to contextualize the challenges of unfunded mandates such as ICD-10 in this era of remarkable expenditures.21

While ICD-10-CM implementation is only occurring in the United States in 2015, readers of this vignette will recall that work on it started >30 years ago and that previously, updates to the system occurred on a reasonably semi-predictable 10-year basis. Work on ICD-11 has already been ongoing for quite a few years. A beta draft was published on-line in 2012 for initial consultation and commenting and a completed product is expected by 2018.22

Conclusions

ICD-10-CM has been noteworthy for the controversy that has surrounded its implementation. It is a far more granular system than its predecessor, allowing better disease tracking, but this granularity also leads to physician anxiety in the context of payment policy. The transition to ICD-10-CM is inconsistently supported by payers and has been hampered by other regulatory requirements related to the Affordable Care Act to which providers are subject.

Neuroradiologists have enjoyed continuous, multiyear representation at the 2 committees that are integrally involved in determining physician reimbursement in the United States. CPT is 1 of the 2 committees. With the increasing granularity associated with ICD-10-CM, in the setting of a new payment paradigm, one might begin to wonder about how that system might impact current procedural coding. Internationally, as US doctors embrace ICD-10-CM, it is worth remembering that work has begun on ICD-11. We can only presume that transitioning to this system is a number of years off in the United States. One can only wonder what Sauvages de Lacroix would think about the seismic transitions that have occurred since he proposed classifying diseases in 1763.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures: Joshua A. Hirsch—UNRELATED: Consultancy: Medtronic/CareFusion, Comments: Both are related to the spine. Medtronic is ongoing. CareFusion was in the last 36 months (single course). Neither is related to the topic of the article. Raymond W. Liu—UNRELATED: Expert Testimony: legal work. Robert M. Barr—UNRELATED: Board Membership: Novant Health. Laxmaiah Manchikanti—UNRELATED: Consultancy: Semnur Pharmaceuticals, Comments: I provided limited consulting services to Semnur Pharmaceuticals, which is developing nonparticulate steroids (US $1400).

  • J.A.H. and L.M. developed the original draft. All other authors had an opportunity to review and provide meaningful edits towards the final manuscript.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Jetté N,
    2. Quan H,
    3. Hemmelgarn B, et al
    ; IMECCHI Investigators. The development, evolution, and modifications of ICD10: challenges to the international comparability of morbidity data. Med Care 2010;48:1105–10 doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181ef9d3e pmid:20978452
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    World Health Organization: History of the Development of the ICD. http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/HistoryOfICD.pdf. Accessed November 4, 2015.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Manchikanti L,
    2. Falco FJ,
    3. Hirsch JA
    . Necessity and implications of ICD-10: facts and fallacies. Pain Physician 2011;14:E405–25 pmid:21927055
    PubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Gersenovic M
    . The ICD family of classifications. Methods Inf Med 1995;34:172–75 pmid:9082128
    PubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Jakob R,
    2. Ustun B,
    3. Madden R, et al
    . The WHO Family of International Classifications. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2007;50:924–31 doi:10.1007/s00103-007-0281-z pmid:17581728
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996. Pub L No. 104–191, Stat 1968
  7. 7.↵
    1. Grider DJ
    1. Grider DJ
    . Format and structure of ICD-10-CM. In: Grider DJ. Preparing for ICD-10-CM: Making the Transition Manageable. Chicago: American Medical Association; 2010:77–114
  8. 8.↵
    1. Manchikanti L,
    2. Falco FJ,
    3. Hirsch JA
    . Ready or not! Here comes ICD-10. J Neurointerv Surg 2013; 5:86–91 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2011-010155 pmid:22025181
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    AMA Adopts New Policies During Final Day of Semi-Annual Meeting. November 15, 2011. http://news.cision.com/american-medical-association/r/ama-adopts-new-policies-during-final-day-of-semi-annual-meeting,c9187364. Accessed January 13, 2016.
  10. 10.↵
    Office of the Secretary, HHS. HIPAA administrative simplification: modifications to medical data code set standards to adopt ID-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS—final rule. Fed Regist 2009;74:3328–62 pmid:19385111
    PubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Hirsch JA,
    2. Manchikanti L
    . The sustainable growth rate: a 2014 update. J Neurointerv Surg 2014;6:411–12 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011170 pmid:24569574
    FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Hirsch JA,
    2. Leslie-Mazwi TM,
    3. Nicola GN, et al
    . The ICD-10 system: a gift that keeps on taking. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:619–22 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011321 pmid:24951285
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Hirsch JA,
    2. Leslie-Mazwi TM,
    3. Nicola GN, et al
    . Current procedural terminology: a primer. J Neurointerv Surg 2015;7:309–12 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2014-011156 pmid:24589819
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Hirsch JA,
    2. Silva E 3rd.,
    3. Nicola GN, et al
    . The RUC: a primer for neurointerventionalists. J Neurointerv Surg 2014;6:61–64 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2012-010636 pmid:23335447
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Hirsch JA,
    2. Donovan WD,
    3. Leslie-Mazwi TM, et al
    . Component coding and the neurointerventionalist: a tale with an end. J Neurointerv Surg 2013;5:615–19 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2012-010606 pmid:23255820
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    AMA News Room. American Medical Association: ICD-10 cost estimates increased for most physicians. February 12, 2914. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2014/2014-02-12-icd10-cost-estimates-increased-for-most-physicians.page. Accessed November 4, 2015.
  17. 17.↵
    1. Manchikanti L,
    2. Hammer M,
    3. Boswell MV, et al
    . Survival strategies for tsunami of ICD-10-CM for interventionalists: pursue or perish! Pain Physician 2015;18:E685–712 pmid:26431128
    PubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Nachimson Advisors. The impact of implementing ICD-10 on physician practices and clinical laboratories. Reisterstown, Maryland: Nachimson Advisors, October 8, 2008. http://www.nachimsonadvisors.com/Documents/ICD-10%20Impacts%20on%20Providers.pdf. Accessed January 13, 2016.
  19. 19.↵
    1. Meyer H
    . Coding complexity: US health care gets ready for the coming of ICD-10. Health Aff 2011;30:968–74 doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0319 pmid:21555481
    FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Murphy K
    . Epic EHR implementation costs Brigham and Women's Hospital. December 10, 2015. https://ehrintelligence.com/news/epic-ehr-implementation-costs-brigham-and-womens-hospital. Accessed January 13, 2016.
  21. 21.↵
    1. Manchikanti L,
    2. Hirsch JA
    . A case for restraint of explosive growth of health information technology: first, do no harm. Pain Physician 2015;18:E293–98 pmid:26000676
    PubMed
  22. 22.↵
    World Health Organization: The international classifications of diseases 11th revision is due by 2018. http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/en/. Accessed October 3, 2015.
  • Received November 18, 2015.
  • Accepted after revision November 23, 2015.
  • © 2016 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 37 (4)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 37, Issue 4
1 Apr 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
ICD-10: History and Context
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
J.A. Hirsch, G. Nicola, G. McGinty, R.W. Liu, R.M. Barr, M.D. Chittle, L. Manchikanti
ICD-10: History and Context
American Journal of Neuroradiology Apr 2016, 37 (4) 596-599; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4696

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
ICD-10: History and Context
J.A. Hirsch, G. Nicola, G. McGinty, R.W. Liu, R.M. Barr, M.D. Chittle, L. Manchikanti
American Journal of Neuroradiology Apr 2016, 37 (4) 596-599; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A4696
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Evaluating Enhanced LLMs for Precise Mental Health Diagnosis from Clinical Notes
  • Evaluation of the costs of care for pediatric patients hospitalized for RSV: a retrospective cohort study in Belgium
  • Sex and aging signatures of proteomics in human cerebrospinal fluid identify distinct clusters linked to neurodegeneration
  • Review of codelists used to define hypertension in electronic health records and development of a codelist for research
  • Estimating rare disease prevalence and costs in the USA: a cohort study approach using the Healthcare Cost Institute claims data
  • Weekly Intra-Treatment Diffusion Weighted Imaging Dataset for Head and Neck Cancer Patients Undergoing MR-linac Treatment
  • Analyse densemble des complications de la COVID-19 : etude dauto-appariement pre- et post-exposition
  • Diagnosis-wide analysis of COVID-19 complications: an exposure-crossover study
  • Developing an Individualized Clinical Prediction Rules of Antihypertensive Drugs: A Study Protocol Based on Real-world Practice
  • AHCA meets BCRA; timeline, context, and future directions
  • Crossref (117)
  • Google Scholar

This article has been cited by the following articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

  • Epidemiology of myelodysplastic syndromes: Why characterizing the beast is a prerequisite to taming it
    Amer M. Zeidan, Rory M. Shallis, Rong Wang, Amy Davidoff, Xiaomei Ma
    Blood Reviews 2019 34
  • Using Phecodes for Research with the Electronic Health Record: From PheWAS to PheRS
    Lisa Bastarache
    Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science 2021 4 1
  • Validity of administrative codes associated with cirrhosis in Sweden
    Bonnie Bengtsson, Johan Askling, Jonas F. Ludvigsson, Hannes Hagström
    Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 2020 55 10
  • The new International Classification of Diseases 11th edition: a comparative analysis with ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM
    Kin Wah Fung, , Julia Xu, Olivier Bodenreider
    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2020 27 5
  • Trends of Utilization and 90-Day Complication Rates for Computer-Assisted Navigation and Robotic Assistance for Total Knee Arthroplasty in the United States From 2010 to 2018
    Ilya Bendich, Milan Kapadia, Kyle Alpaugh, Alioune Diane, Jonathan Vigdorchik, Geoffrey Westrich
    Arthroplasty Today 2021 11
  • Comparative Analysis of Utilization of Epidural Procedures in Managing Chronic Pain in the Medicare Population
    Laxmaiah Manchikanti, Amol Soin, Dharam P. Mann, Sanjay Bakshi, Vidyasagar Pampati, Joshua A. Hirsch
    Spine 2019 44 3
  • Exploring the differences in ICD and hospital morbidity data collection features across countries: an international survey
    Lucia Otero Varela, Chelsea Doktorchik, Natalie Wiebe, Hude Quan, Catherine Eastwood
    BMC Health Services Research 2021 21 1
  • A survey on semantic processing techniques
    Rui Mao, Kai He, Xulang Zhang, Guanyi Chen, Jinjie Ni, Zonglin Yang, Erik Cambria
    Information Fusion 2024 101
  • Automatic multilabel detection of ICD10 codes in Dutch cardiology discharge letters using neural networks
    Arjan Sammani, Ayoub Bagheri, Peter G. M. van der Heijden, Anneline S. J. M. te Riele, Annette F. Baas, C. A. J. Oosters, Daniel Oberski, Folkert W. Asselbergs
    npj Digital Medicine 2021 4 1
  • A narrative review of the impact of the transition to ICD-10 and ICD-10-CM/PCS
    Sheila V Kusnoor, Mallory N Blasingame, Annette M Williams, Spencer J DesAutels, Jing Su, Nunzia Bettinsoli Giuse
    JAMIA Open 2020 3 1

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner
  • Book Reviews

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire