1990
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1014564
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

ICD-10 Field Trial in German-Speaking Countries - Summary of the Quantitative Empirical Results

Abstract: The summary of the quantitative results of the ICD-10 field trial in German-speaking countries shows a adequate acceptance of ICD-10. The figures for interrater reliability for the diagnostic categories are adequate for most categories considering the comparatively low level of familiarity with the new system. The high degree of overlap between the diagnostic categories in ICD-9 and ICD-10 is an indication of the validity of ICD-10. The major source of disagreement is the relocation of several diagnostic categ… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

1990
1990
1996
1996

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our results concerning the mean interrater reliability using three different diagnostic instruments are compa rable with the results of other neurological investigators [1][2][3] or the results of interrater reliability studies in psy chiatry [16][17][18][19][20], In our study, ICD-10 achieved the high est interrater agreement as compared to the other classi fication systems. The main reason for this 'advantage' is that in comparison to the other systems, ICD-10 pro vides a smaller number of diagnostic categories, while ICD-9 and CSGN take into account additional pathoge netic aspects.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our results concerning the mean interrater reliability using three different diagnostic instruments are compa rable with the results of other neurological investigators [1][2][3] or the results of interrater reliability studies in psy chiatry [16][17][18][19][20], In our study, ICD-10 achieved the high est interrater agreement as compared to the other classi fication systems. The main reason for this 'advantage' is that in comparison to the other systems, ICD-10 pro vides a smaller number of diagnostic categories, while ICD-9 and CSGN take into account additional pathoge netic aspects.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…With reference to the methodological strategies of other interrater reliability studies [16][17][18][19][20], we developed 13 standardized case reports dealing with typical cerebrovascular diseases. All case re ports had a uniform structure, which included: (1) patient's history; (2) patient's age and sex; (3) historical ischemic events; (4) risk fac tors; (5) acute symptomatology; (6) neurological status on admission to the hospital; (7) results of CCT, extracranial Doppler sonography, Duplex ultrasound of the carotid arteries, echocardiography, and laboratory findings; (8) clinical course, and (9) clinical status at dis charge.…”
Section: Case Reports and Diagnostic Assessmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…ICD-10 has adopted the concept of so-called operationalized diag noses from the American classification sys tems DSM-III and DSM-III-R [3]. A high lev el of acceptance and endorsement was found among clinicians and researchers in different countries in an international questionnaire survey for DSM-III/DSM-III-R [4] and in first field trials for ICD-10 [5][6][7],…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In analogy to the field concerning the Diagnostic Guidelines [6][7][8] there was a field trial of the DCR. Aims of this study were to assess whether the diagnostic criteria could be understood and applied by clinicians and researchers and whether they were relevant to diagnostic categories.…”
Section: Design Of the Field Trialmentioning
confidence: 99%