ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
Implementation of OMOP and ConcePTION Common Data Models in CPRD GOLD: Risk of Bleeding and Cardiovascular Outcomes From Anticoagulant Use.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The impact of the choice of common data model (CDM) approach on the study results in a real-world evidence (RWE) study is unknown. We aimed to determine potential differences in the results of an RWE study when data were mapped to two different CDMs, ConcePTION and OMOP. With the same instance of CPRD GOLD, data were mapped to both CDMs. Using the same programming steps, we estimated the risk of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) on bleeding and cardiovascular (CVD) outcomes in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Baseline characteristics, incidence rates, and Cox proportional hazards ratios were compared between the analyses. OMOP and ConcePTION mapped study populations included 80,701 (93,350 person-years) and 76,726 exposed persons (100,135 person-years), respectively. DOACs showed no differential risk of CVD compared to VKAs in ConcePTION mapped data (HR 0.99, 95% CI [0.91; 1.08]), but protective effects in OMOP (HR 0.82, 95% CI [0.74; 0.90]). DOACs had a similar increase in risk of stroke (ConcePTION HR 1.19, 95% CI [1.02; 1.37]; OMOP HR 1.10, 95% CI [0.96; 1.26]). No increased risk of major bleeding was identified (ConcePTION HR 0.97, 95% CI [0.84; 1.13]; OMOP HR 0.90, 95% CI [0.78; 1.04]). OMOP gave lower effect estimates for CVD and equivalent risks of stroke and bleeding associated with DOACs use. This study highlights the challenges in repeating the same analysis across the two data CDMs. Differences potentially stem from the cohort construction, the identification of phenotypes in the different CDMs, and the use of imputed variables defined during mapping processes, such as drug exposure duration.
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.