ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Real-World Use of Controlled Terminologies, Ontologies, and Vocabularies for Evidence Generation Across a Large International Observational Network: Challenges and Lessons Learned From a Mixed Method Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Large-scale international real-world evidence generation benefits from terminology harmonization. Despite widespread adoption of standardized vocabularies, their effective use and long-term sustainability at scale remain poorly understood. Objective: This study aimed to examine real-world terminology and code use in data across a federated network of observational data sources. Methods: We conducted a 2-part survey of researchers and data owners within the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics community on their terminology use, challenges, and needs, accompanied by the analysis of code use across a subset of real-world data sources. Results: The survey covered 144 institutions across the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, Asia, and Africa. Data on terminology use covered 60 sources, including 22 data sources that provided detailed code-level use information. We observed significant variations in terminology use, with 61 out of 89 terminologies used in the data present in less than 10% of the data sources. Code use even after data harmonization was also highly variable: less than 1% (95/742,337) of codes were found in all data sources. Mapping and hierarchy completeness, terminology coverage, versioning, and terminology changes were among the most common challenges. We outlined several of our subsequent process improvements: community contribution and stewardship pipelines, metadata for relationships, and informatics tools for assessment of the impact of terminology change. Conclusions: Terminology and coding inconsistencies across observational data sources require a standardized terminology system. Such a system is complex and time-consuming and needs community contribution and informatics solutions for harmonization to be scalable and sustainable. Even with a common reference standard, high heterogeneity of terminology and code use across different observational data sources remains.
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.