ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Evaluating MedDRA-to-ICD terminology mappings.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cardiac safety profiles of first-generation vs second-generation BTK inhibitors: a meta-analysis.The oncologist · 2026Pooled it
- Leveraging Synthetic Clinical Data for Validation and Operational Readiness in Clinical Trials.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Characterization and comparison of structured and unstructured electronic health record data mapped to MedDRA for post-marketing surveillance.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Characterizing persistent Post-COVID-19 vaccination symptoms using MedDRA system organ class and preferred term classifications.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Extended-course transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation for pediatric overactive bladder: a 6-Month prospective single-arm study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Post-marketing safety profile of dengue vaccines CYD-TDV and TAK-003: analysis of adverse event reports from a European database.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Quantitative analysis of the comprehensiveness and granularity of biomedical terminology systems.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Disproportionality Analysis of Ivabradine in the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System: A Real-World Study Across Overall and Indication-Specific Populations.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2025Article
- Perspective review: Will generative AI make common data models obsolete in future analyses of distributed data networks?Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2025Review
- Safety of Inclisiran: A Disproportionality Analysis from the EudraVigilance Database.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Safety assessment of asenapine in the FAERS database: real adverse event analysis and discussion on neurological and psychiatric side effects.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn this era of big data, data harmonization is an important step to ensure reproducible, scalable, and collaborative research. Thus, terminology mapping is a necessary step to harmonize heterogeneous data. Take the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) for example, the mapping between them is essential for drug safety and pharmacovigilance research. Our main objective is to provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the mapping status between MedDRA and ICD. We focus on evaluating the current mapping status between MedDRA and ICD through the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) and Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP CDM). We summarized the current mapping statistics and evaluated the quality of the current MedDRA-ICD mapping; for unmapped terms, we used our self-developed algorithm to rank the best possible mapping candidates for additional mapping coverage.
resultsThe identified MedDRA-ICD mapped pairs cover 27.23% of the overall MedDRA preferred terms (PT). The systematic quality analysis demonstrated that, among the mapped pairs provided by UMLS, only 51.44% are considered an exact match. For the 2400 sampled unmapped terms, 56 of the 2400 MedDRA Preferred Terms (PT) could have exact match terms from ICD.
conclusionSome of the mapped pairs between MedDRA and ICD are not exact matches due to differences in granularity and focus. For 72% of the unmapped PT terms, the identified exact match pairs illustrate the possibility of identifying additional mapped pairs. Referring to its own mapping standard, some of the unmapped terms should qualify for the expansion of MedDRA to ICD mapping in UMLS.
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.