There are 156 concepts with an FSN expressing combined disorders CO-OCCURENT AND DUE TO, for example 724992007 |Epilepsy co-occurrent and due to dementia (disorder)|.
In Norway, we have translated these concepts with a corresponding expression (“samtidig med og som skyldes”). However, the Norwegian translation does not reflect actual clinical language. It seems that the meaning is expressed with other linguistic means, such as the preposition WITH even though it doesn’t carry the exact same meaning and is quite ambigous.
Having a look in the browser, it seems that most countries have opted for a similar approach. Has this been discussed? What were the arguments for following the wording of the FSN?
It should be noted that some of these concepts have synonyms, normally following two patterns:
1 WITH, such as “Myopathy with hypercalcemia” (724559006 |Myopathy co-occurrent and due to hypercalcemia (disorder)|)
2 The causative condition in an adjective form, such as “Uremic acidosis” (83850008 |Acidosis co-occurrent and due to uremia (disorder)|
There is a section of the Editorial Guide regarding combined disorders stating:
"Rather than the naming conventions described above, use the names that are accepted clinical parlance and that represent specific pathophysiologic entities for some combined disorders, as the preferred term.
The stricter rules for FSN construction do not prevent the addition of more familiar connectives in other descriptions, for example with, or *associated with".
This, of course, is a statement regarding the international edition, but would still be relevant for translations as it makes equivalence a bit more flexible when doing the translation.
Thoughts from other countries?