ArticlePloS one2025
ETL: From the German Health Data Lab data formats to the OMOP Common Data Model.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Common data models and data standards for tabular health data: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe German Health Data Lab is going to provide access to German statutory health insurance claims data ranging from 2009 to the present for research purposes. Due to evolving data formats within the German Health Data Lab, there is a need to standardize this data into a Common Data Model to facilitate collaborative health research and minimize the need for researchers to adapt to multiple data formats. For this purpose we selected transforming the data to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model.
methodsWe developed an Extract, Transform, and Load (ETL) pipeline for two distinct German Health Data Lab data formats: Format 1 (2009-2016) and Format 3 (2019 onwards). Due to the identical format structure of Format 1 and Format 2 (2017 -2018), the ETL pipeline of Format 1 can be applied on Format 2 as well. Our ETL process, supported by Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics tools, includes specification development, SQL skeleton creation, and concept mapping. We detail the process characteristics and present a quality assessment that includes field coverage and concept mapping accuracy using example data.
resultsFor Format 1, we achieved a field coverage of 92.7%. The Data Quality Dashboard showed 100.0% conformance and 80.6% completeness, although plausibility checks were disabled. The mapping coverage for the Condition domain was low at 18.3% due to invalid codes and missing mappings in the provided example data. For Format 3, the field coverage was 86.2%, with Data Quality Dashboard reporting 99.3% conformance and 75.9% completeness. The Procedure domain had very low mapping coverage (2.2%) due to the use of mocked data and unmapped local concepts The Condition domain results with 99.8% of unique codes mapped. The absence of real data limits the comprehensive assessment of quality.
conclusionThe ETL process effectively transforms the data with high field coverage and conformance. It simplifies data utilization for German Health Data Lab users and enhances the use of OHDSI analysis tools. This initiative represents a significant step towards facilitating cross-border research in Europe by providing publicly available, standardized ETL processes (https://github.com/FraunhoferMEVIS/ETLfromHDLtoOMOP) and evaluations of their performance.
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.