ArticleOphthalmology science
Implementing a Common Data Model in Ophthalmology: Mapping Structured Electronic Health Record Ophthalmic Examination Data to Standard Vocabularies.
Article in Ophthalmology science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Semaglutide and diabetic retinopathy: an OHDSI network study.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2025 · on this mapObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To identify and characterize concept coverage gaps of ophthalmology examination data elements within the Cerner Millennium electronic health record (EHR) implementations by the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) common data model (CDM). Design: Analysis of data elements in EHRs. Subjects: Not applicable. Methods: Source eye examination data elements from the default Cerner Model Experience EHR and a local implementation of the Cerner Millennium EHR were extracted, classified into one of 8 subject categories, and mapped to the semantically closest standard concept in the OMOP CDM. Mappings were categorized as exact, if the data element and OMOP concept represented equivalent information, wider, if the OMOP concept was missing conceptual granularity, narrower, if the OMOP concept introduced excess information, and unmatched, if no standard concept adequately represented the data element. Descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis were used to describe the concept coverage for each subject category. Main Outcome Measures: Concept coverage gaps in 8 ophthalmology subject categories of data elements by the OMOP CDM. Results: There were 409 and 947 ophthalmology data elements in the default and local Cerner modules, respectively. Of the 409 mappings in the default Cerner module, 25% (n = 102) were exact, 53% (n = 217) were wider, 3% (n = 11) were narrower, and 19% (n = 79) were unmatched. In the local Cerner module, 18% (n = 173) of mappings were exact, 54% (n = 514) were wider, 1% (n = 10) were narrower, and 26% (n = 250) were Conclusions: Considerable coverage gaps by the OMOP CDM exist in all areas of the ophthalmology examination, which should be addressed to improve the OMOP CDM's effectiveness in ophthalmic research. We identify specific subject categories that may benefit from increased granularity in the OMOP CDM and provide suggestions for facilitating consistency of standard concepts, with the goal of improving data standards in ophthalmology. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
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.