Talk:SNOMED CT

message: This article has a lot of linkspam, but at the same time, a lot of these links provide references, so we can't just delete them all...This article needs a lot of work. I'll just tag it for now with the relevant templates. S Sepp 21:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkspam

message: The article should adopt the Wikipedia convention of American spelling, e.g don't use "organised," rather "organiZed."  It makes for an unpleasant reading experience.  Furthermore, British spellings are not recognized by most on-line dictionaries.
: As a Brit, I find those "zeds" ("zees" to you guys) "unpleasant", but I wouldn't normally be rude enought to put it that way!  And remember that "British" spelling would actually more correctly be refered to as "non-US"....though details vary and overlap, MOST English speaking countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc.) use spelling generally closer to the UK one.  Furthermore, you are WRONG to suggest that Wikipedia has a convention on this - it only asks for consistency within an article - see Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English 89.241.206.20 (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British spelling 

message: SNOMED CT is a reference terminology and cannot be used directly for generating health statistics and general research. SNOMED requires mapping to other classification systems before data can be used by researchers. Classification provides a method of distributing coded concepts in a sorted and meaningful manner. tygrus (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SNOMED CT usage 

message: SNOMED-CT can be used for health statistics and general research--if you know how to use it.  It is ontologically based, and that can always be used in lieu of much less robust systems like ICD.  If you take the time to read the Users Guide it is pretty clear how to use the concept model.
As far as the complexity is concerned, I don't see why physicians etc. should use SNOMED-CT.  They should use software which uses SNOMED-CT.  What a silly notion.  It is like suggesting that a user understand UTF encoding and HTML as a requirement to use a web browser!  Nonsense.  Again, understanding the concept model, and how to use the expressed relationships is required to implement it.  Just like you cannot write a web browser without knowing HTTP and HTML, you cannot implement SNOMED-CT without understanding it's underlying concept model.  
The size and complexity of SNOMED-CT reflects reality of clinical medicine.  People who have an obligation to represent reality in their documentation systems require this fidelity to the real world.  What hampers the use of SNOMED-CT are systems created which do not understand the cognitive models of clinicians and which do not understand how to properly use SNOMED-CT.  User interfaces can be simplified (but only so much), and still capture complex concepts, but it requires better developers than what are working on the problem today.
The statements made by the above contributor are irrelevant and erroneous.  When I have some more time I will try and come back and provide the detail on how to do this, but in the interim, please consult the reasonably well written User's Guide which comes with the distribution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.178.5 (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: don't confuse the issue!

message: Could we at Wikipedia use the SNOMED CT terms to improve Wikipedia interwiki links? I noticed that the interwiki links to parts of the DSM-IV and the ICD-10 are not always filled in, though the various diseases often have pages in the various sister wikipedias. Jane (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki links

message: I think this article should be better referenced, as per Wikipedia basic guidelines (see below). 
In addition, it should include more information on SNOMED CT's application in electronic health record systems (EHRs) and explain its relationship with other classification systems, such as ICD-10. Overall, the article is "hard" to read and it would benefit from simplification. 
*:File:WikipediaReferencing.pdf
Beata Steinberg (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles can "belong" to multiple projects. Have tagged with , but not populated parameters. Little pob (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Improvements 

message: SNOMED and SNOMED CT are registered trademarks of the IHTSDO (the International Health Terminology Standards Organisation) http://www.ihtsdo.org.
SNOMED CT stands for SNOMED Clinical Terms (not as some references suggest "Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms"). This is an understandable error since this long-winded name is the historic source of the name SNOMED. However, this derivation is a historical note and the terminology itself is simply called "SNOMED Clinical Terms". This is clear in all authoritative materials including the http://www.ihtsdo.org/articles.pdf and the http://www.ihtsdo.org/license.pdf which are the basis of the ownership and IPR of SNOMED Clinical Terms and make no mention of the historical note.
By the way SNOMED-CT is also often used but is an incorrect name - the hyphen is not used in the registered or formal name and is deprecated.  In terminology consistency is important so it is a pity when people incorrectly name or expand the name of a terminology!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.20.129.81 (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The note says "From..." and it is now cited. So it's noted in a note as a historical footnote I guess, then. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

text: If I reverted the last edit, which I disagree with, it would be too much like Wikipedia:Edit warring. There's nothing wrong with noting where the term came from historically. It is cited well. We actually prefer WP:Secondary sources. Biosthmors (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  SNOMED CT the name and the expansion 

message: The figure illustrating blood glucose concentration in the (evolving) observation model (at bottom of page) is taken from the Observables and Investigation Procedures Redesign document, which is copyright by IHTSDO (not CC BY-SA 4.0) Harry.solomon (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed as its use fails criteria 8 and 10 of WP:NFCCP. It could be added back  the image was referred to within the article, and the attribution was correct. I have also tagged the image over at Commons for copyvio/speedy deletion, as it's not intended as a fair use repository. Little pob (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright on figure 

message: Ilike you ah haha 50.65.142.246 (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Craziness ribbonleg  

message: Greetings, the link for reference 5, (https://www.nehta.gov.au/our-work/clinical-terminology/snomed-clinical-terms) now brings the user to the main site and not the page linked. -132.203.193.107 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead/invalid link