ArticleJAMIA open2026
Assessing data quality of inflammatory bowel disease patients in the
Article in JAMIA open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) consists of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) and is a spectrum autoimmune disease of the gastrointestinal tract. Large scale real-world evidence studies could provide valuable evidence about IBD for personalized healthcare recommendations. The Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP CDM) standardizes electronic health record (EHR) data, allowing for research that incorporates multiple data sources. We are interested in whether OMOP CDM data on IBD are fit-for-use. Methods: We selected IBD diagnosis codes to define the phenotype. We used a data quality checklist to evaluate 5 domains: conformance, completeness, concordance, plausibility, and temporality. We also did sensitivity analyses for CD and UC that consisted of at least 2 diagnosis codes that were at least 30 days apart. Results: All of the phenotype-defining ICD source codes mapped to SNOMED. Many concept prevalences were low. A total of 78 (30.1%) out of 253 concept correlations were above our strength threshold (⍴ > 0.5). The age distribution of concepts and relative frequency of IBD medications were plausible. The median time between diagnosis and biopsy for the cohort was 4.43 [-0.05, 104.29] weeks. For the subgroup of participants who had sufficient data for the timeline analysis, IBD diagnosis concepts tended to occur first. In our sensitivity analyses, the completeness percentages of many variables in the UC and CD subgroups were similar to IBD, except for disease specific workup and treatment concepts. Conclusion: We have shown a novel implementation of our data quality framework on IBD cohorts.
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.