Talk:SNOMED CT

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linkspam

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)[reply]

British spelling

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)[reply]

Not so fast, there

Australia, Canada, NZ, US, UK, Scotland, Ireland and other Anglophone areas all have different conventions on spelling. Just as the English version of SNOMED-CT comes with UK and US variants (really should be North American and European, since most Canadians tend to use the spelling improvements (I am only kidding!) shared with their southern neighbor). We need to get WikiPedia to localize!

As a matter of fact, IHTSDO (the owner of SNOMED Clinical Terms) uses US English as its primary standard for documents - but does include GB dialect versions of many documents and of the terminology itself. However, curiously the correct name of the organization is "International Health Terminology Standards Development Organisation" (this GB spelling also seems to be used by several other international bodies).

SNOMED CT usage

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)[reply]
Implantation and use of SNOMED by doctors and other health professionals is hampered by the size and complexity of SNOMED. Attempts to simplify data input risk limiting its capability and compatibility of multiple data sources ie. loss of data quality. tygrus (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

don't confuse the issue!

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)[reply]

Interwiki links

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)[reply]

Good idea. A further suggestion would be that Wikipedia can be used as a multilinguistic platform for the translation of SNOMED CT terms. Linforest (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Improvements

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)[reply]

Added the "too Technical tag" to the disputes section, this introduces many different concepts and issues but doesn't explain them or they are of doubtful relevance.

Also this article is concerned with ontology for classification of disease, should it be part of the WikiProject Computing, or remain in the Medicine project? 46.208.42.215 (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can "belong" to multiple projects. Have tagged with {{WikiProject Computing}}, but not populated parameters. Little pob (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SNOMED CT the name and the expansion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Copyright on figure

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)[reply]

I have removed as its use fails criteria 8 and 10 of WP:NFCCP. It could be added back if 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)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at La Trobe University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dead/invalid link

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)[reply]