ArticleApplied clinical informatics2024
Coverage of Physical Therapy Assessments in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Availability and Quality of Electronic Health Record Data to Track Physical Function Across a Care Transition.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- Collaborative AI for precision neurorehabilitation: a roadmap.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-value care aims to enhance meaningful patient outcomes while reducing costs and is accelerated by curating data across health care systems through common data models (CDMs), such as Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP). Meaningful patient outcomes, such as physical function, must be included in these CDMs. However, the extent to which physical therapy assessments are covered in the OMOP CDM is unclear.
objectiveThis study aimed to examine the extent to which physical therapy assessments used in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions are in the OMOP CDM.
methodsAfter identifying assessments, two reviewer teams independently mapped the neurologic and orthopaedic assessments into the OMOP CDM. Agreement within the reviewer team was assessed by the number of assessments mapped by both reviewers, one reviewer but not the other, or neither reviewer. The reviewer teams then reconciled disagreements, after which agreement and the average number of concept ID numbers per assessment were assessed.
resultsOf the 81 neurologic assessments, 48.1% (39/81) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 9.9% (8/81) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 42% (34/81) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 46.9% (38/81) were mapped by both reviewers and 53.1% (43/81) were unmapped. Of the 79 orthopaedic assessments, 46.8% (37/79) were initially mapped by both reviewers, 12.7% (10/79) were mapped by one reviewer but not the other, and 48.1% (38/79) were unmapped. After reconciliation, 48.1% (38/79) were mapped by both reviewers and 51.9% (41/79) were unmapped. Most assessments that were mapped had more than one concept ID number (2.2 ± 1.3 and 4.3 ± 4.4 concept IDs per neurologic and orthopaedic assessment, respectively).
conclusionThe OMOP CDM includes some physical therapy assessments recommended for use in neurologic and orthopaedic conditions but many have multiple concept IDs. Including more functional assessments in the OMOP CDM and creating guidelines for mapping would improve our ability to include functional data in large datasets.
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.