Talk:HELLP syndrome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] ICD10 code
For reference, a source for the ICD10 code is here (Word/RTF file format): --Arcadian 14:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Heineman 2003 reference
I've been unable to find the Heineman 2003 reference. Is it a book? MJ Heineman is the most plausible author. JFW | T@lk 06:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Table removed
I have removed the table, as no reference could be found despite another search.
Condition | Relative risk |
Chronic hypertension | x10 |
Diabetes | x2 |
Auto-immune diseases (lupus erythematodes disseminatus, anti-phospholipid syndrome) |
10 |
Chronic renal failure | x20 |
Thrombophilia caused by Protein S deficiency, activated protein C deficiency, Factor V Leiden deficiency or hyperhomocysteinaemia |
x1 |
I was wondering if the original inserter could be so kind as to share the full academic reference with us. JFW | T@lk 07:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I haven't added this table to the article, but I know the book which is referred to. We're using it at our faculty. Its data:
- Authors: M.J. Heineman, O.P. Bleker, J.L.H. Evers, A.P.M. Heintz
- Title: Obstetrie en gynaecologie (De voortplanting van de mens)
- My edition: fourth (2002)
- Publisher data: Elzevier Gezondheidszorg, Maarssen 2001
- ISBN: 90-352-2394-2
- The table is at: page 260, table 11-4
Hope this is enough info, otherwise let me know :) Greets, A. Rad 13:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ICD9 Code
I added 642.53 as ICD9 code for two reasons:
- According to this: http://www.nzhis.govt.nz/documentation/mapping/mappingfiles.html it is the direct translation of O14.1.
- When looking on the WHO website, all O14.1 have as a description is "Severe pre-eclampsia", which look pretty much the same, to me at least, than the ICD9 description. Aristiana 11:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- HELLP syndrome is a stand-alone clinical entity, but when coding for ICD-9 is needed for insurance/statistical purposes, O14.1 is a reasonable choice. Still, Weinstein only described this condition after ICD-9 came out, so it would be an anachronism to link to O14.1. Still, if others feel this is too fussy, we can always do it. JFW | T@lk 06:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)