Observational studyJournal of medical Internet research2026
Addressing Data Quality Challenges in Lung Cancer Data Within the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model: Observational Study.
Observational study in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The secondary use of health data is essential for advancing medical research and improving clinical practice. The Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM) enables large-scale, multicenter studies but faces challenges related to consistency, completeness, and transparency during data mapping from original data sources. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the quality of the mapping process for lung cancer data within the Federated Health Innovation Network project, with a focus on consistency, completeness, and challenges encountered throughout the process. Methods: Clinical data from Ghent University Hospital were mapped to the OMOP CDM using a reference data dictionary. Consistency was assessed using Cohen kappa (κ) scores, while completeness was evaluated by comparing patient and record counts before and after mapping. Challenges, including unstructured data and an evolving reference standard, were documented and analyzed. Results: High consistency was observed for structured variables, while some unstructured variables, such as "Smoking status," were excluded due to their free-text format and the lack of suitable OMOP concepts. The completeness analysis showed minimal data loss for most structured variables but highlighted substantial challenges associated with unstructured data. Persistent issues included evolving data dictionary versions and mismatches in diagnostic code granularity between institutions, underscoring structural challenges in standardization. Conclusions: The transformation of lung cancer data to the OMOP CDM highlighted both technical and systemic challenges, including the handling of unstructured data and the resolution of granularity discrepancies. A multidisciplinary approach involving clinical and technical expertise is crucial for ensuring reliable, high-quality datasets for multicenter research.
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.