I’m trying to create a historical view of LOINC codes. While loading the codes I’m noticing some discrepancies in the data that I’m curious about. Mainly it involves concepts that exist in one version of LOINC, are gone in the next, and then reappear in the following version.
For example, the LOINC num 52495-9 exists in version 2.26, is gone in 2.27, and back in 2.29.
How should this concept be treated in version 2.27? Is it deleted? Deprecated? No change?
Similar things are happening with some short names. Loinc num 1009-0 has a shortname value in 2.24, no shortname in 2.26, and then a shortname in 2.27. So in version 2.26 should the shortname be removed? Or not changed?
Let me know if you need further clarification, or if you have any tips on how your organization may have handled these data questions.
I see Mira responded to one question in your email. For the shortname display issue, keep in mind there was a time period where not all shortnames had been created. After the creation formula was decided, it took several versions to implement. So as you reverse engineer backwards, you’ll see the terms that didn’t have displays at one point in time.