Duplicate ICD9 entries in Concept

Developers
1

For each ICD9CM concept there appears to be multiple entries where the only difference appears to be the removal of the “.” in the source code (V029 vs V02.9).

cat CONCEPT.csv | grep -i ‘Carrier or suspected carrier of other specified infectious organism’
44827289,Carrier or suspected carrier of other specified infectious organism,Condition,ICD9CM,ICD9CM V code,V029,20140401,20991231,
44833028,Carrier or suspected carrier of other specified infectious organism,Condition,ICD9CM,ICD9CM V code,V02.9,19700101,20991231,

As “V02.9” is the standard ICD structure, should the entries that use this format be marked as the standard concept?

Thanks,
Bill

2

Bill.

Yes. Fixed in the upcoming release. So, all the dot-less ones are going to be deprecated.

BTW: ICD-9-CM codes are non-standard, whether fresh or deprecated. You have to map them to something standard (which is usually SNOMED).

I am going through a whole swamp of such little nastinesses. All courtesy of an code base that wasn’t ready when the developer passed away unexpectedly. We are essentially re-doing the entire thing.

C

3

@Christian_Reich

I’m running CDM5, Vocab and Usagi through their paces right now. I’ll watch for the update.

Thanks for the update.

Bill

4

@Christian_Reich

In v4 had SOURCE_TO_CONCEPT_MAP to enable this conversion. What will be the method for converting ICD9 diagnoses to SNOMED in v5?

Thanks,
Bill

5

Bill:

Read the **** manual. J

http://ohdsi.org/web/wiki/doku.php?id=documentation:cdm:source_to_concept_map.

C

6

Thanks. I walked right into that one. I use the PDF doc and missed that.

Seriously, I find the lack of links between the Github and OHDSI Wiki to be an issue. I’m happy to submit a pull request to update the README.md.

7

Agreed. We will fix that and declare what the official versions are, and pull the other ones.