Talk:ICD-10

message: This page is exactly the same as List_of_ICD-10_codes, except the links don't go through. HoCkEy PUCK 01:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Reverse merge - I agree that the content is much better on the page List_of_ICD-10_codes and its subpages, but this is the more obvious title - since the subject itself is a list, I think it would be fine to have a short intro paragraph that explains what ICD-10 is, than go ahead and provide the codes, without needing to have "List of" in the title. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 19:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I merged it. I set the other page as the redirect. SadanYagci 21:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged 

message: Dear Colleague,
WHO has given permission to present ICD-10 in wikipedia. However no 
publisher may change content or structure of the classifcation.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ICD-10_codes>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ICD-10_codes shows the basic 
structure of ICD-10 and was set to be able to access the full ICD through 
links. Unfortunately you have used a wrong chapter 
numbering (A-Z instead of roman numbering) changing the structure. 
Chapters in several cases do not correspond to the first character of the code. 
I able to correct the titles of the chapters in part but the links have still to be reset.
Kind regards,
Robert Jakob
Medical Officer
Classifications and Terminologies (CAT) 
Department of Measurement and Health Information Systems (MHI) 
Evidence and Information for Policy (EIP) 
World Health Organization 20, Avenue Appia
1211 Geneva 27
Switzerland
web:  <http://www.who.int/classifications>
:I have renamed the pages listed at List of ICD-10 codes, so they now use the roman numerals. --Arcadian 10:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICD-10 

message: I have looked at the page, and am of the opinion that the table can probably be used under the "list of facts" exception - you can't give an accurate representation of the material without listing it, and it seems that the WHO is more interested in having the stuff be correct than in having it protected. If people disagree, please make comments under this heading; if the WHO person is watching, please consider granting permission for distribution under the GFDL using the OTRS process, so that it's beyond doubt that we have the right to use this. --Alvestrand 23:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright issue 

message: Where do I find or access various revisions of ICD-10 to see what changes have been made and when. There does not appear to any reference to this in the Article? Jagra (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisions

message: Per WP:LEAD, every article needs one.  I stumbled upon one of the chapter subarticles and I had no clue what ICD-10 was or what I was looking at.  I didn't even see a link back to this page except for a link under "see also" that redirected here.  I hesitate to put intromissing templates on every single one but they need fixing.  Even if they're two sentence leads saying "ICD-10 is a medical reference book that...Listings coded A00-A99 from chapter X are listed below." Oren0 (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subarticles all need leads 

message: * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ICD-10+classification+validation&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
--58.38.43.251 (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validation of ICD-10 classification....???? 

message: * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+ICD+10+nomenclature&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
--222.64.22.16 (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature...in ICD-10...??? 

message: See ISBN and Documentation
--124.78.214.100 (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identifier of ICD-10....????....A book or a document....??? 

message: The text mentioning the 155000 codes has created quite some confusion.  Indeed, reference is made to the US ICD-10CM.  The edits to the article do clarify the difference now.
Regards
Robert Jakob
jakobr at who.int
WHO  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icdmaat (talk • contribs) 17:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usual confusion between modified ICD, as for the US, and the International version. 

message: Every chapter article for this work has severe problems when it comes to links. Tons of red links where no link is needed, repeated links instead of just the first occurrence, links to disambiguation pages (ex: embedded instead of embedded) and incorrect links (ex: eruption instead of eruption). I don't know who decided that every single word in an article should be a link, but that's not true at all. Please see Wikipedia:Tutorial (Wikipedia links). -- Fyrefly  (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subarticles all need serious work on links 

message: This quote from the article sounds like something written by a software salesman:
Although the undertaking can seem overwhelming, especially to small practices,[18] technology can be a big help. Practices should check with their EHR vendors to make sure they understand the data storage requirements for the new code set; seek online training available through association websites and software-based instruction; and invest in additional technology, such as patient kiosks, to boost productivity.[19]
To me, this paraphrases as, "Don't worry about ICD-10 because (our inexpensive solution) solves all the problems you have."  I work for a hospital and ICD-10 adoption is enormously expensive in technology, training, and procedural changes; and will have a much greater operating expense (than ICD-9) thereafter.  Seems like this needs some balancing opinions or commentary. CoyneT talk 18:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sales pitch 

message: I'd like it if the article could be improved a lot by that date. Maybe it could even be the featured article that day... Hey, it doesn't hurt to dream, right?-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA implementing ICD10 on October 1 2014 

message: None of the external links look like official sources, they just look like companies with ICD-10 related services that are using wikipedia for advertising. The first two links look suspicious but I want to point out that the third link is mostly advertisements.
* ICD-10 - Complete Reference: There's no mention of who runs this.
* Free ICD-10 codes online search and complete index based reference: There's no mention of who runs this. Also, it looks poorly made.
* ICD-10 Codes Search and Crosswalk: if you type "diabetes" into the search bar and do a search, all you get is more ads. With some finagling you can get some codes, but is this really what wikipedia should be linking to?
All of this information is available here at a much more official source: ICD-10 Version:2015, and in fact is available right on wikipedia. Bryant.kou (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the external links not spam? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on ICD-10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080917144534/http://www.dhhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080815a.html to http://www.dhhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080815a.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there a way to link into wikipedia articles by ICD10 code? For example, for Protrusio acetabuli instead of externally linking to link by name is there a set of redirects or parser functions or similar that would allow for a link to something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICD10-M24.7? Tenbergen (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking into Wikipedia by ICD10 code 

message: Note that a lot has changed since the introduction of the ICD-11 earlier this year. It needs to be said that the website links to the content of the WHO is no longer accessible. There is a need for a lot of work on this page. More information can be found at: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.39.177 (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. However, I have reverted your changes. First; on checking today (21/8/18), the online resources mentioned in the article are still available. <aside>I have a vague recollection that the online ICD-10 browser was down for maintenance recently.</aside> Second; the current published timeline states ICD-11 has yet to be ratified, and is not expected to be used before Jan 2022. Third; this page is specifically about ICD-10 – it would be inappropriate to switch its focus to ICD-11. The bulk of our ICD-11 content is currently over at ICD; but will eventually be WP:SPLITOUT. Little pob (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: :Users Katertotz and Nhituta: the two sections below on style and plagiarism were added as top-level section headers, but they look very much like parts of this peer review which should be subsumed under it.  I've taken the liberty of changing them from H2 to H4 headers.  This is what's called a technical TPO violation, as I should not be changing another editor's comments. However, these sections were confusing as top-level sections, and I think they work better this way.  If you disagree, feel free to revert this change.  Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Just curious: on what basis are you judging that there is no copyright violation? Eyeballing the language?  Does your professor give you any tools for this?  Are you aware of the Wikipedia tools available designed specifically for the purpose? Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your question. Students were provided a training module to identify and avoid plagiarism and copyright violation. I reviewed each student's contribution through their history, contributions, and differences on their profile. I personally read through the citations that they referenced and compared their additions with their contributions. I did not use a plagiarism/copyright violation tool; however, based on your recommendation and using a tool, I did not see any of their edits queried. It is note-worthy to mention that the section regarding Canada's ICD-10 code use was queried, though this was not a current student's contribution. Are there any edits that you would reconsider? Thank you for your help!
==== Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…. ====
I think that the overall tone of the article is neutral and that the group's specific contributions to the article reflected a neutral point of view. The only section that I believe could be improved is the 'Criticisms' section; there is some rhetoric used (e.g. 'absurd') that is opinionated and does not represent a universal view of the subject. I believe this group could greatly improve this article by rewriting that section to better reflect an unbiased point of view. Jennyzhou4 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: For the most part the edits reflect a neutral point of view.  In the new paragraph at the beginning of the US section, there seems to be a lot of mention of pros and cons.  This paragraph might not be necessary, especially considering the section for the US is so long already.  The morbidity data using ICD-9 is an interesting addition, and I wonder if there is info anywhere that discusses why it is still used.  Overall really good work folks. MLauCP133 (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

message: Each sentence that presents a new fact appears to be verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available to the public. Many of the sources seem to be from government or international organization's websites, which are definitely available for anyone with access to the interview to view and verify. Woozers93 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? 

message: After reading the edits made, it felt like there was a lot more room for improvement in terms of the manual of style. The manual emphasizes readability and ease of understanding. The United States portion of this article was very confusing for me to read. It said that the U.S. started using ICD-10 codes on Oct 1st, 2015 several times in the article. I feel that creating more of a storyline with the implementation of the system, it's current challenges and uses, and how it's different from other countries would make everything easier to understand. 
As a budding healthcare professional, I was only able to somewhat grasp the concept of an ICD-10 code and why it's important. As a patient or a general layman, this article would not be a good first resource.Katertotz (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style? If not, specify.... 

message: I think that the overall tone of the article is neutral and that the group's specific contributions to the article reflected a neutral point of view. The only section that I believe could be improved is the 'Criticisms' section; there is some rhetoric used (e.g. 'absurd') that is opinionated and does not represent a universal view of the subject. I believe this group could greatly improve this article by rewriting that section to better reflect an unbiased point of view. Jennyzhou4 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…. 

message: The Russian version of this document, МКБ-10 (see the talk page), is an awful pseudoscientific forgery of fascists. --VictorPorton (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Russian version of this document, МКБ-10, is an awful pseudoscientific forgery