ArticleBMJ neurology open2025
Density of routinely collected neurology data depends on patient visit type: an investigation using the observational medical outcomes partnership common data model.
Article in BMJ neurology 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM) is a standardised framework for organising healthcare data. This study uses data in the OMOP CDM format to analyse information on neurology patients. Methods: Routinely collected data harmonised to OMOP at a large referral hospital in England were used. A study cohort was defined as patients who attended at least one neurology outpatient appointment between 01 April 2022 and 31 March 2023 (n=23 862). Data collected at all visits to the hospital made by this cohort between 01 April 2021 and 31 March 2024 were extracted. The cohort was then divided into four subcohorts according to appointment types attended: outpatient appointment(s) only (n=15 2); outpatient appointment(s) and inpatient stay(s) (n=2750); outpatient appointment(s) and emergency department attendance(s) (n=1658); outpatient appointment(s), inpatient stay(s) and emergency department attendance(s) (n=4199). Results: We found there to be more data available for patients who had at least one inpatient stay or emergency department attendance than for those with only outpatient appointments. Notably, an average of 0 out of 100 patients in the outpatient only subcohort had a record of a condition, compared with 100 out of 100 patients in the subcohort with outpatient appointments, emergency attendances and inpatient stays. Conclusions: Neurology outpatients have far less data recorded than inpatients or patients attending emergency departments. This disparity arises from the lack of outpatient diagnostic coding and impairs the advancement of research in this area. Using the OMOP CDM structure makes it easy to highlight these differences.
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.