ArticleDrug safety2013
An evaluation of the THIN database in the OMOP Common Data Model for active drug safety surveillance.
Article in Drug safety, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
55 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.
- Common data models and data standards for tabular health data: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Development and Application of an Active Pharmacovigilance Framework Based on Electronic Healthcare Records from Multiple Centers in Korea.Drug safety · 2023Pooled it
- An OMOP-CDM based pharmacovigilance data-processing pipeline (PDP) providing active surveillance for ADR signal detection from real-world data sources.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Pooled it
- Implementation of OMOP and ConcePTION Common Data Models in CPRD GOLD: Risk of Bleeding and Cardiovascular Outcomes From Anticoagulant Use.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Evaluating the statistical utility and information loss in the transformation of a real-world oncology database from CDISC-SDTM to OMOP-CDM.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- Extending the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model for Critical Care Medicine: A Framework for Standardizing Complex ICU Data Using the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Critical Care Data Dictionary (C2D2).Critical care medicine · 2026Article
- Identifying health conditions associated with an increased risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at medium term in nationwide electronic health records of primary care physicians.British journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Perspective review: Will generative AI make common data models obsolete in future analyses of distributed data networks?Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2025Review
- Trends in statin prescription among osteoporosis patients: A retrospective cohort study using UK primary care data.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- Article
- European Health Data & Evidence Network-learnings from building out a standardized international health data network.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Observational
- Advancing Toward a Common Data Model in Ophthalmology: Gap Analysis of General Eye Examination Concepts to Standard Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Concepts.Ophthalmology science · 2023Article
- LeafAI: query generator for clinical cohort discovery rivaling a human programmer.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Article
- Research data warehouse: using electronic health records to conduct population-based observational studies.JAMIA open · 2023Article
- Visualizations throughout pharmacoepidemiology study planning, implementation, and reporting.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2022Review
- Article
- Preliminary feasibility assessment of CDM-based active surveillance using current status of medical device data in medical records and OMOP-CDM.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Standardizing registry data to the OMOP Common Data Model: experience from three pulmonary hypertension databases.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Association between the use of allopurinol and risk of increased thyroid-stimulating hormone level.Scientific reports · 2021Observational
- Transformation of Electronic Health Records and Questionnaire Data to OMOP CDM: A Feasibility Study Using SG_T2DM Dataset.Applied clinical informatics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been increased interest in using multiple observational databases to understand the safety profile of medical products during the postmarketing period. However, it is challenging to perform analyses across these heterogeneous data sources. The Observational Medical Outcome Partnership (OMOP) provides a Common Data Model (CDM) for organizing and standardizing databases. OMOP's work with the CDM has primarily focused on US databases. As a participant in the OMOP Extended Consortium, we implemented the OMOP CDM on the UK Electronic Healthcare Record database-The Health Improvement Network (THIN).
objectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate the implementation of the THIN database in the OMOP CDM and explore its use for active drug safety surveillance.
methodsFollowing the OMOP CDM specification, the raw THIN database was mapped into a CDM THIN database. Ten Drugs of Interest (DOI) and nine Health Outcomes of Interest (HOI), defined and focused by the OMOP, were created using the CDM THIN database. Quantitative comparison of raw THIN to CDM THIN was performed by execution and analysis of OMOP standardized reports and additional analyses. The practical value of CDM THIN for drug safety and pharmacoepidemiological research was assessed by implementing three analysis methods: Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Univariate Self-Case Control Series (USCCS) and High-Dimensional Propensity Score (HDPS). A published study using raw THIN data was selected to examine the external validity of CDM THIN.
resultsOverall demographic characteristics were the same in both databases. Mapping medical and drug codes into the OMOP terminology dictionary was incomplete: 25 % medical codes and 55 % drug codes in raw THIN were not listed in the OMOP terminology dictionary, representing 6 % condition occurrence counts, 4 % procedure occurrence counts and 7 % drug exposure counts in raw THIN. Seven DOIs had <0.3 % and three DOIs had 1 % of unmapped drug exposure counts; each HOI had at least one definition with no or minimal (≤0.2 %) issues with unmapped condition occurrence counts, except for the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) ulcer hospitalization cohort. The application of PRR, USCCS and HDPS found, respectively, a sensitivity of 67, 78 and 50 %, and a specificity of 68, 59 and 76 %, suggesting that safety issues defined as known by the OMOP could be identified in CDM THIN, with imperfect performance. Similar PRR scores were produced using both CDM THIN and raw THIN, while the execution time was twice as fast on CDM THIN. There was close replication of demographic distribution, death rate and prescription pattern and trend in the published study population and the cohort of CDM THIN.
conclusionsThis research demonstrated that information loss due to incomplete mapping of medical and drug codes as well as data structure in the current CDM THIN limits its use for all possible epidemiological evaluation studies. Current HOIs and DOIs predefined by the OMOP were constructed with minimal loss of information and can be used for active surveillance methodological research. The OMOP CDM THIN can be a valuable tool for multiple aspects of pharmacoepidemiological research when the unique features of UK Electronic Health Records are incorporated in the OMOP library.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.