Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38635655›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

The OMOP common data model in Australian primary care data: Building a quality research ready harmonised dataset.

Roger Ward, Christine Mary Hallinan, David Ormiston-Smith, Christine Chidgey, Dougie Boyle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Roger WardHealth & Biomedical Research Information Technology Unit (HaBIC R2), Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Christine Mary HallinanHealth & Biomedical Research Information Technology Unit (HaBIC R2), Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0471-4444
David Ormiston-SmithHealth & Biomedical Research Information Technology Unit (HaBIC R2), Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Christine ChidgeyHealth & Biomedical Research Information Technology Unit (HaBIC R2), Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Dougie BoyleHealth & Biomedical Research Information Technology Unit (HaBIC R2), Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of routinely collected health data for secondary research purposes is increasingly recognised as a methodology that advances medical research, improves patient outcomes, and guides policy. This secondary data, as found in electronic medical records (EMRs), can be optimised through conversion into a uniform data structure to enable analysis alongside other comparable health metric datasets. This can be achieved with the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP-CDM), which employs a standardised vocabulary to facilitate systematic analysis across various observational databases. The concept behind the OMOP-CDM is the conversion of data into a common format through the harmonisation of terminologies, vocabularies, and coding schemes within a unique repository. The OMOP model enhances research capacity through the development of shared analytic and prediction techniques; pharmacovigilance for the active surveillance of drug safety; and 'validation' analyses across multiple institutions across Australia, the United States, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. In this research, we aim to investigate the use of the open-source OMOP-CDM in the PATRON primary care data repository.

methodsWe used standard structured query language (SQL) to construct, extract, transform, and load scripts to convert the data to the OMOP-CDM. The process of mapping distinct free-text terms extracted from various EMRs presented a substantial challenge, as many terms could not be automatically matched to standard vocabularies through direct text comparison. This resulted in a number of terms that required manual assignment. To address this issue, we implemented a strategy where our clinical mappers were instructed to focus only on terms that appeared with sufficient frequency. We established a specific threshold value for each domain, ensuring that more than 95% of all records were linked to an approved vocabulary like SNOMED once appropriate mapping was completed. To assess the data quality of the resultant OMOP dataset we utilised the OHDSI Data Quality Dashboard (DQD) to evaluate the plausibility, conformity, and comprehensiveness of the data in the PATRON repository according to the Kahn framework.

resultsAcross three primary care EMR systems we converted data on 2.03 million active patients to version 5.4 of the OMOP common data model. The DQD assessment involved a total of 3,570 individual evaluations. Each evaluation compared the outcome against a predefined threshold. A 'FAIL' occurred when the percentage of non-compliant rows exceeded the specified threshold value. In this assessment of the primary care OMOP database described here, we achieved an overall pass rate of 97%.

conclusionThe OMOP CDM's widespread international use, support, and training provides a well-established pathway for data standardisation in collaborative research. Its compatibility allows the sharing of analysis packages across local and international research groups, which facilitates rapid and reproducible data comparisons. A suite of open-source tools, including the OHDSI Data Quality Dashboard (Version 1.4.1), supports the model. Its simplicity and standards-based approach facilitates adoption and integration into existing data processes.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchAustraliaDatabases, FactualElectronic Health RecordsEuropeHumansPharmacovigilancePrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID38635655
PMCPMC11025850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.