The DOI matches its Crossref record.
HL7 Clinical Document Architecture, Release 2
Open accessAbstract
Clinical Document Architecture, Release One (CDA R1), became an American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-approved HL7 Standard in November 2000, representing the first specification derived from the Health Level 7 (HL7) Reference Information Model (RIM). CDA, Release Two (CDA R2), became an ANSI-approved HL7 Standard in May 2005 and is the subject of this article, where the focus is primarily on how the standard has evolved since CDA R1, particularly in the area of semantic representation of clinical events. CDA is a document markup standard that specifies the structure and semantics of a clinical document (such as a discharge summary or progress note) for the purpose of exchange. A CDA document is a defined and complete information object that can include text, images, sounds, and other multimedia content. It can be transferred within a message and can exist independently, outside the transferring message. CDA documents are encoded in Extensible Markup Language (XML), and they derive their machine processable meaning from the RIM, coupled with terminology. The CDA R2 model is richly expressive, enabling the formal representation of clinical statements (such as observations, medication administrations, and adverse events) such that they can be interpreted and acted upon by a computer. On the other hand, CDA R2 offers a low bar for adoption, providing a mechanism for simply wrapping a non-XML document with the CDA header or for creating a document with a structured header and sections containing only narrative content. The intent is to facilitate widespread adoption, while providing a mechanism for incremental semantic interoperability.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Artificial intelligence in healthcare
Yu, K.-H., Beam, A. L., & Kohane, I. S. (2018) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-018-0305-z · Cited by 2,817
Fhirchain: applying blockchain to securely and scalably share clinical data
Zhang, P., White, J., Schmidt, D. C., Lenz, G., & Rosenbloom, S. T. (2018) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2018.07.004 · Cited by 796
Yang, G., Ye, Q., & Xia, J. (2022) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2021.07.016 · Cited by 717
Biomedical Ontologies in Action: Role in Knowledge Management, Data Integration and Decision Support
Bodenreider, O. (2008) · Yearbook of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1638585 · Cited by 368
García-Río, F., Calle, M., Burgos, F., Casan, P., del Campo, F., Galdiz, J. B., Giner, J., González-Mangado, N., Ortega, F., & Puente Maestu, L. (2013) · Archivos de Bronconeumología · doi:10.1016/j.arbres.2013.04.001 · Cited by 283
Metadata
- Authors
- Dolin, R. H., Alschuler, L., Boyer, S., Beebe, C., Behlen, F. M., Biron, P. V., & Shabo (Shvo), A.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-01-01
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 30-39
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- OpenAlex
- W2113164419
- Cited by
- 752
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 75.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: HL7 Clinical Document Architecture, Release 2. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1197/jamia.m1888
- The paper
- Dolin, R. H., Alschuler, L., Boyer, S., Beebe, C., Behlen, F. M., Biron, P. V., & Shabo (Shvo), A. (2006). HL7 Clinical Document Architecture, Release 2. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.m1888
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.