ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2025
Mapping Emergency Medicine Data to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model: A Gap Analysis of the American College of Emergency Physicians Clinical Emergency Data Registry.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to conduct a gap analysis to determine the feasibility of mapping electronic health record data from the Clinical Emergency Data Registry (CEDR) to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP-CDM). Methods: We employed a structured approach using a custom-built comparison matrix. This matrix facilitated the alignment of CEDR data fields with the corresponding elements in the OMOP-CDM schema. Each field was evaluated for compatibility, with categorization into 3 distinct types: direct matches, fields requiring transformation, and fields with no OMOP-CDM equivalent. The mapping process was informed by consultations with the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics community forums and was guided by existing documentation and best practices in data harmonization. We performed descriptive analyses, quantifying the extent of direct matches and identifying the specific transformations needed for each CEDR-CDM field to ensure compliance with the OMOP-CDM model. Results: Our analysis indicates a high degree of compatibility between CEDR and OMOP, with over 90% (244/269) of CEDR fields being successfully mapped. Specifically, 173 fields had direct matches, whereas 71 required transformations. Challenges identified include addressing fields unique to CEDR with no OMOP-CDM equivalent and managing the transformations required for proper alignment. Conclusion: The OMOP-CDM presents a promising framework for standardizing emergency medicine data, thereby enhancing future query automation, analytics, and cross-institutional collaboration. Despite the potential challenges in capturing unique CEDR fields and addressing necessary transformations, most emergency department data can be standardized within the OMOP-CDM, fostering broader insights and applications in research and public health.
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.