Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine–Clinical Terminology (SNOMED CT) Clinical Use Cases in the Context of Electronic Health Record Systems: Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Systematized Medical Nomenclature for Medicine-Clinical Terminology (SNOMED CT) is a clinical terminology system that provides a standardized and scientifically validated way of representing clinical information captured by clinicians. It can be integrated into electronic health records (EHRs) to increase the possibilities for effective data use and ensure a better quality of documentation that supports continuity of care, thus enabling better quality in the care process. Even though SNOMED CT consists of extensively studied clinical terminology, previous research has repeatedly documented a lack of scientific evidence for SNOMED CT in the form of reported clinical use cases in electronic health record systems. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore evidence in previous literature reviews of clinical use cases of SNOMED CT integrated into EHR systems or other clinical applications during the last 5 years of continued development. The study sought to identify the main clinical use purposes, use phases, and key clinical benefits documented in SNOMED CT use cases. METHODS: The Cochrane review protocol was applied for the study design. The application of the protocol was modified step-by-step to fit the research problem by first defining the search strategy, identifying the articles for the review by isolating the exclusion and inclusion criteria for assessing the search results, and lastly, evaluating and summarizing the review results. RESULTS: In total, 17 research articles illustrating SNOMED CT clinical use cases were reviewed. The use purpose of SNOMED CT was documented in all the articles, with the terminology as a standard in EHR being the most common (8/17). The clinical use phase was documented in all the articles. The most common category of use phases was SNOMED CT in development (6/17). Core benefits achieved by applying SNOMED CT in a clinical context were identified by the researchers. These were related to terminology use outcomes, that is, to data quality in general or to enabling a consistent way of indexing, storing, retrieving, and aggregating clinical data (8/17). Additional benefits were linked to the productivity of coding or to advances in the quality and continuity of care. CONCLUSIONS: While the SNOMED CT use categories were well supported by previous research, this review demonstrates that further systematic research on clinical use cases is needed to promote the scalability of the review results. To achieve the best out-of-use case reports, more emphasis is suggested on describing the contextual factors, such as the electronic health care system and the use of previous frameworks to enable comparability of results. A lesson to be drawn from our study is that SNOMED CT is essential for structuring clinical data; however, research is needed to gather more evidence of how SNOMED CT benefits clinical care and patient safety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".