Good morning from Spain
We have reviewed some concepts related to 48365001 | Circumference measure (observable entity) |
We had doubts because some of them had a grouper and others did not. Examples:
But in the following case, there is no grouper:
The questions that arise are the following:
- Is a grouper (parent) necessary for this type of concepts where laterality is specified in the registers?
- If a parent is needed, should a discussion/review be opened on which concepts a parent needs to be created and related?
On the other hand, I have seen that SNOMED-CT has two very similar (I would say identical) concepts.
CONCEPT 1
CONCEPT 2
Questions:
- Are they synonymous?
- Does one measure at rest and another with active muscle?
Greetings to all.
2 Comments
Cathy Richardson
Hi Francisco Jose Rodriguez Alcazar ,
With non lateralised groupers e.g. Calf circumference (observable entity), if there was a justification for adding the concept (other than just organisational reasons) then requests could be considered.
In relation to the mid upper arm circumference and mid upper arm muscle circumference, they are not the same. Mid upper arm circumference measurements will include subcutaneous fat. It's commonly used for screening nutritional status: https://dapa-toolkit.mrc.ac.uk/anthropometry/objective-methods/simple-measures-muac. See also (in the nutritional and performance assessment section): https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ol.2013.1128 and: http://www.scymed.com/en/smnxpn/pnpdb035.htm
Kind regards,
Cathy
Francisco Jose Rodriguez Alcazar
Hi Cathy Richardson
Mid upper arm muscle circumference seems like a very specific concept.
It was difficult for me to find that definition. All searches sent me to mid upper arm circumference.
Thanks Cathy.