临床实践研究数据链(CPRD) GOLD和aurum数据转化为OMOP公共数据模型的验证。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Health Informatics Journal Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-09-16 DOI:10.1177/14604582251381270
George Kafatos, Joe Maskell, Olia Archangelidi, David Neasham
{"title":"临床实践研究数据链(CPRD) GOLD和aurum数据转化为OMOP公共数据模型的验证。","authors":"George Kafatos, Joe Maskell, Olia Archangelidi, David Neasham","doi":"10.1177/14604582251381270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To assesses the transformation of UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) databases into the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM) version 5.3.1. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic approach was used to generate medical code lists and compare prevalent and incident counts between the source and OMOP CDM versions. <b>Results:</b> The results showed, for CPRD General Practitioner Online Database (GOLD) database, 89.5% of clinical events had no or very small differences in prevalent and incident event counts between the two versions of the database. The differences for CPRD Aurum were even smaller, with 97.4% of events showing no or very small differences in counts between the source and OMOP versions. Some observed discrepancies were due to codes being mapped into different tables. <b>Conclusion:</b> The study findings confirm the consistency of the OMOP transformation and provide confidence in analyses that query CPRD OMOP-transformed data.</p>","PeriodicalId":55069,"journal":{"name":"Health Informatics Journal","volume":"31 3","pages":"14604582251381270"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of the transformed clinical practice research datalink (CPRD) GOLD and aurum data into the OMOP common data model.\",\"authors\":\"George Kafatos, Joe Maskell, Olia Archangelidi, David Neasham\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14604582251381270\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To assesses the transformation of UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) databases into the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM) version 5.3.1. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic approach was used to generate medical code lists and compare prevalent and incident counts between the source and OMOP CDM versions. <b>Results:</b> The results showed, for CPRD General Practitioner Online Database (GOLD) database, 89.5% of clinical events had no or very small differences in prevalent and incident event counts between the two versions of the database. The differences for CPRD Aurum were even smaller, with 97.4% of events showing no or very small differences in counts between the source and OMOP versions. Some observed discrepancies were due to codes being mapped into different tables. <b>Conclusion:</b> The study findings confirm the consistency of the OMOP transformation and provide confidence in analyses that query CPRD OMOP-transformed data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55069,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Informatics Journal\",\"volume\":\"31 3\",\"pages\":\"14604582251381270\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Informatics Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14604582251381270\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Informatics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14604582251381270","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估英国临床实践研究数据链(CPRD)数据库向观察性医疗结果伙伴关系(OMOP)公共数据模型(CDM) 5.3.1版本的转变。方法:采用系统的方法生成医疗代码清单,并比较源版本和OMOP CDM版本之间的流行和事件计数。结果:结果显示,在CPRD全科医生在线数据库(GOLD)数据库中,89.5%的临床事件在两个版本的数据库中没有或非常小的流行和事件计数差异。CPRD Aurum的差异甚至更小,97.4%的事件在源版本和OMOP版本之间没有或非常小的计数差异。一些观察到的差异是由于代码被映射到不同的表中。结论:研究结果证实了OMOP转换的一致性,为查询CPRD OMOP转换数据的分析提供了信心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validation of the transformed clinical practice research datalink (CPRD) GOLD and aurum data into the OMOP common data model.

Objective: To assesses the transformation of UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) databases into the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM) version 5.3.1. Methods: A systematic approach was used to generate medical code lists and compare prevalent and incident counts between the source and OMOP CDM versions. Results: The results showed, for CPRD General Practitioner Online Database (GOLD) database, 89.5% of clinical events had no or very small differences in prevalent and incident event counts between the two versions of the database. The differences for CPRD Aurum were even smaller, with 97.4% of events showing no or very small differences in counts between the source and OMOP versions. Some observed discrepancies were due to codes being mapped into different tables. Conclusion: The study findings confirm the consistency of the OMOP transformation and provide confidence in analyses that query CPRD OMOP-transformed data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Informatics Journal
Health Informatics Journal HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-MEDICAL INFORMATICS
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Health Informatics Journal is an international peer-reviewed journal. All papers submitted to Health Informatics Journal are subject to peer review by members of a carefully appointed editorial board. The journal operates a conventional single-blind reviewing policy in which the reviewer’s name is always concealed from the submitting author.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信