A Characterization of local LOINC mapping for laboratory tests in three large institutions

M. C. Lin, D. J. Vreeman, C. J. McDonald, Stanley M. Huff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: We characterized the use of laboratory LOINC® codes in three large in - stitutions, focused on the following questions: 1) How many local codes had been voluntarily mapped to LOINC codes by each institution? 2) Could additional mappings be found by expert manual review for any local codes that were not initially mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? and 3) Are there any common characteristics of unmapped local codes that might explain why some local codes were not mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? Methods: With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we obtained deidentified data from three large institutions. We calculated the percentage of local codes that have been mapped to LOINC by personnel at each of the institutions. We also analyzed a sample of unmapped local codes to determine whether any additional LOINC mappings could be made and identify common characteristics that might explain why some local codes did not have mappings. Results: Concept type coverage and concept token coverage (volume of instance data covered) of local codes mapped to LOINC codes were 0.44/0.59, 0.78/0.78 and 0.79/ - 0.88 for ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief, respectively. After additional expert manual mapping, the results showed mapping rates of 0.63/0.72, 0.83/0.80 and 0.88/0.90, respectively. After excluding local codes which were not useful for inter-insti - tutional data exchange, the mapping rates became 0.73/0.79, 0.90/0.99 and 0.93/0.997, respectively. Conclusions: Local codes for two institutions could be mapped to LOINC codes with 99% or better concept token coverage, but mapping for a third institution (a reference laboratory) only achieved 79% concept token coverage. Our research supports the conclusions of others that not all local codes should be assigned LOINC codes. There should also be public discussions to develop more precise rules for when LOINC codes should be assigned.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)105-114
Number of pages10
JournalMethods of Information in Medicine
Volume50
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes
Research Ethics Committees

Keywords

  • Clinical laboratory information systems
  • Controlled vocabulary
  • Evaluation research
  • LOINC

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Informatics
  • Health Information Management
  • Advanced and Specialised Nursing

Cite this

A Characterization of local LOINC mapping for laboratory tests in three large institutions. / Lin, M. C.; Vreeman, D. J.; McDonald, C. J.; Huff, Stanley M.

In: Methods of Information in Medicine, Vol. 50, No. 2, 2011, p. 105-114.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lin, M. C. ; Vreeman, D. J. ; McDonald, C. J. ; Huff, Stanley M. / A Characterization of local LOINC mapping for laboratory tests in three large institutions. In: Methods of Information in Medicine. 2011 ; Vol. 50, No. 2. pp. 105-114.
@article{668da8142cf940278392d2b3572a4008,
title = "A Characterization of local LOINC mapping for laboratory tests in three large institutions",
abstract = "Objectives: We characterized the use of laboratory LOINC{\circledR} codes in three large in - stitutions, focused on the following questions: 1) How many local codes had been voluntarily mapped to LOINC codes by each institution? 2) Could additional mappings be found by expert manual review for any local codes that were not initially mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? and 3) Are there any common characteristics of unmapped local codes that might explain why some local codes were not mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? Methods: With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we obtained deidentified data from three large institutions. We calculated the percentage of local codes that have been mapped to LOINC by personnel at each of the institutions. We also analyzed a sample of unmapped local codes to determine whether any additional LOINC mappings could be made and identify common characteristics that might explain why some local codes did not have mappings. Results: Concept type coverage and concept token coverage (volume of instance data covered) of local codes mapped to LOINC codes were 0.44/0.59, 0.78/0.78 and 0.79/ - 0.88 for ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief, respectively. After additional expert manual mapping, the results showed mapping rates of 0.63/0.72, 0.83/0.80 and 0.88/0.90, respectively. After excluding local codes which were not useful for inter-insti - tutional data exchange, the mapping rates became 0.73/0.79, 0.90/0.99 and 0.93/0.997, respectively. Conclusions: Local codes for two institutions could be mapped to LOINC codes with 99{\%} or better concept token coverage, but mapping for a third institution (a reference laboratory) only achieved 79{\%} concept token coverage. Our research supports the conclusions of others that not all local codes should be assigned LOINC codes. There should also be public discussions to develop more precise rules for when LOINC codes should be assigned.",
keywords = "Clinical laboratory information systems, Controlled vocabulary, Evaluation research, LOINC",
author = "Lin, {M. C.} and Vreeman, {D. J.} and McDonald, {C. J.} and Huff, {Stanley M.}",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.3414/ME09-01-0072",
language = "English",
volume = "50",
pages = "105--114",
journal = "Methods of Information in Medicine",
issn = "0026-1270",
publisher = "Schattauer GmbH",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Characterization of local LOINC mapping for laboratory tests in three large institutions

AU - Lin, M. C.

AU - Vreeman, D. J.

AU - McDonald, C. J.

AU - Huff, Stanley M.

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Objectives: We characterized the use of laboratory LOINC® codes in three large in - stitutions, focused on the following questions: 1) How many local codes had been voluntarily mapped to LOINC codes by each institution? 2) Could additional mappings be found by expert manual review for any local codes that were not initially mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? and 3) Are there any common characteristics of unmapped local codes that might explain why some local codes were not mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? Methods: With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we obtained deidentified data from three large institutions. We calculated the percentage of local codes that have been mapped to LOINC by personnel at each of the institutions. We also analyzed a sample of unmapped local codes to determine whether any additional LOINC mappings could be made and identify common characteristics that might explain why some local codes did not have mappings. Results: Concept type coverage and concept token coverage (volume of instance data covered) of local codes mapped to LOINC codes were 0.44/0.59, 0.78/0.78 and 0.79/ - 0.88 for ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief, respectively. After additional expert manual mapping, the results showed mapping rates of 0.63/0.72, 0.83/0.80 and 0.88/0.90, respectively. After excluding local codes which were not useful for inter-insti - tutional data exchange, the mapping rates became 0.73/0.79, 0.90/0.99 and 0.93/0.997, respectively. Conclusions: Local codes for two institutions could be mapped to LOINC codes with 99% or better concept token coverage, but mapping for a third institution (a reference laboratory) only achieved 79% concept token coverage. Our research supports the conclusions of others that not all local codes should be assigned LOINC codes. There should also be public discussions to develop more precise rules for when LOINC codes should be assigned.

AB - Objectives: We characterized the use of laboratory LOINC® codes in three large in - stitutions, focused on the following questions: 1) How many local codes had been voluntarily mapped to LOINC codes by each institution? 2) Could additional mappings be found by expert manual review for any local codes that were not initially mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? and 3) Are there any common characteristics of unmapped local codes that might explain why some local codes were not mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? Methods: With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we obtained deidentified data from three large institutions. We calculated the percentage of local codes that have been mapped to LOINC by personnel at each of the institutions. We also analyzed a sample of unmapped local codes to determine whether any additional LOINC mappings could be made and identify common characteristics that might explain why some local codes did not have mappings. Results: Concept type coverage and concept token coverage (volume of instance data covered) of local codes mapped to LOINC codes were 0.44/0.59, 0.78/0.78 and 0.79/ - 0.88 for ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief, respectively. After additional expert manual mapping, the results showed mapping rates of 0.63/0.72, 0.83/0.80 and 0.88/0.90, respectively. After excluding local codes which were not useful for inter-insti - tutional data exchange, the mapping rates became 0.73/0.79, 0.90/0.99 and 0.93/0.997, respectively. Conclusions: Local codes for two institutions could be mapped to LOINC codes with 99% or better concept token coverage, but mapping for a third institution (a reference laboratory) only achieved 79% concept token coverage. Our research supports the conclusions of others that not all local codes should be assigned LOINC codes. There should also be public discussions to develop more precise rules for when LOINC codes should be assigned.

KW - Clinical laboratory information systems

KW - Controlled vocabulary

KW - Evaluation research

KW - LOINC

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80051778425&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80051778425&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3414/ME09-01-0072

DO - 10.3414/ME09-01-0072

M3 - Article

C2 - 20725694

AN - SCOPUS:80051778425

VL - 50

SP - 105

EP - 114

JO - Methods of Information in Medicine

JF - Methods of Information in Medicine

SN - 0026-1270

IS - 2

ER -