SNOMED CT contains a certain amount of FSNs expressing causatin and co-occurrence, for example 8161000119106 |Arthritis co-occurrent and due to Crohn’s disease (disorder)| and 15993551000119100 |Disorder of eye co-occurrent and due to Marfan syndrome (disorder)|.
According to the Editorial Guide, no new concepts should be modelled wtih this description. However, there are still some legacy concepts:
“There are approximately 300 legacy concepts with co-occurrent and dueto in the description. Do not add new concepts with the terming co-occurrent and due to; instead use co-occurrence modeling (both conditions are represented in a supertype) in addition to the Due to (attribute) if warranted by the clinical condition.”
Translating FSNs of combined disorders which are related by two phrases are challenging, especially when a natural and clinical friendly language is the ideal.
In Norway, we will change these translation, omitting the “co-occurrent” element. This also is in alignment with the description of new concepts in the international editions.
Have other countries considered similar approaches?
We started to look at these last year and I agree that co-current can be omitted in the translation. It will make the preferred term easier to understand as well.
This sounds like a solution that DK might adopt too, but is SI not still working on these descriptions and could the result in some cases be something different than what you expect?
I also noted that “due to” is often an occurring part of the co-current concepts (like the issue we are discussing here), but we also have co-current without due to (and due to without co-current). So… need to look at our current translations an see if anything changes if we omit co-current.
=> we decided to translate “co-occurrent and due to” into “mit und durch = with and due to”, which is sufficiently short so it was accepted. Regarding the co-occurrence topic I had an exchange on CRS, see https://prod-request.ihtsdotools.org/#/requests/preview/967214?kb .
Your approach seems to align with the latest editorial advice for the terms. Where the “co-occurrent” element is implied (unless it is explicitly “following”).
Though you’ve also highlighted a general frustration of mine with how the editorial changes are managed:
Not updating legacy content to reflect updated editorial rules, is arguably worse than not updating the editorial rules. It introduces more inconsistency and confusion. It’s also much easier for authors to create new content based on the precedent of existing content.
