Maryam Garza1, Guilherme Del Fiol2, Jessica Tenenbaum3, Anita Walden4, Meredith Nahm Zozus5. 1. Duke Translational Medicine Institute, Duke University, 2424 Erwin Road, Hock Plaza Box 3850, Durham, NC 27705, USA. Electronic address: maryam.garza@duke.edu. 2. Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah School of Medicine, 421 Wakara Way, Room: Suite 140, Salt Lake City, UT 84108, USA. Electronic address: guilherme.delfiol@utah.edu. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, 2424 Erwin Road, Suite 1102 Hock Plaza Box 2721, Durham, NC 27705, USA. Electronic address: jessie.tenenbaum@duke.edu. 4. Duke Translational Medicine Institute, Duke University, 2424 Erwin Road, Hock Plaza Box 3850, Durham, NC 27705, USA; Department of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 501 Jack Stephens Drive, Mail Slot # 782, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA. Electronic address: acwalden@uams.edu. 5. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, 2424 Erwin Road, Suite 1102 Hock Plaza Box 2721, Durham, NC 27705, USA; Department of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 501 Jack Stephens Drive, Mail Slot # 782, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA. Electronic address: mzozus@uams.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate common data models (CDMs) to determine which is best suited for sharing data from a large, longitudinal, electronic health record (EHR)-based community registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four CDMs were chosen from models in use for clinical research data: Sentinel v5.0 (referred to as the Mini-Sentinel CDM in previous versions), PCORnet v3.0 (an extension of the Mini-Sentinel CDM), OMOP v5.0, and CDISC SDTM v1.4. Each model was evaluated against 11 criteria adapted from previous research. The criteria fell into six categories: content coverage, integrity, flexibility, ease of querying, standards compatibility, and ease and extent of implementation. RESULTS: The OMOP CDM accommodated the highest percentage of our data elements (76%), fared well on other requirements, and had broader terminology coverage than the other models. Sentinel and PCORnet fell short in content coverage with 37% and 48% matches respectively. Although SDTM accommodated a significant percentage of data elements (55% true matches), 45% of the data elements mapped to SDTM's extension mechanism, known as Supplemental Qualifiers, increasing the number of joins required to query the data. CONCLUSION: The OMOP CDM best met the criteria for supporting data sharing from longitudinal EHR-based studies. Conclusions may differ for other uses and associated data element sets, but the methodology reported here is easily adaptable to common data model evaluation for other uses. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate common data models (CDMs) to determine which is best suited for sharing data from a large, longitudinal, electronic health record (EHR)-based community registry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four CDMs were chosen from models in use for clinical research data: Sentinel v5.0 (referred to as the Mini-Sentinel CDM in previous versions), PCORnet v3.0 (an extension of the Mini-Sentinel CDM), OMOP v5.0, and CDISC SDTM v1.4. Each model was evaluated against 11 criteria adapted from previous research. The criteria fell into six categories: content coverage, integrity, flexibility, ease of querying, standards compatibility, and ease and extent of implementation. RESULTS: The OMOP CDM accommodated the highest percentage of our data elements (76%), fared well on other requirements, and had broader terminology coverage than the other models. Sentinel and PCORnet fell short in content coverage with 37% and 48% matches respectively. Although SDTM accommodated a significant percentage of data elements (55% true matches), 45% of the data elements mapped to SDTM's extension mechanism, known as Supplemental Qualifiers, increasing the number of joins required to query the data. CONCLUSION: The OMOP CDM best met the criteria for supporting data sharing from longitudinal EHR-based studies. Conclusions may differ for other uses and associated data element sets, but the methodology reported here is easily adaptable to common data model evaluation for other uses. Copyright Â
Authors: J Marc Overhage; Patrick B Ryan; Christian G Reich; Abraham G Hartzema; Paul E Stang Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-10-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sandra L MacKenzie; Matt C Wyatt; Robert Schuff; Jessica D Tenenbaum; Nick Anderson Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-03-21 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Kensaku Kawamoto; Guilherme Del Fiol; Howard R Strasberg; Nathan Hulse; Clayton Curtis; James J Cimino; Beatriz H Rocha; Saverio Maviglia; Emory Fry; Harm J Scherpbier; Vojtech Huser; Patrick K Redington; David K Vawdrey; Jean-Charles Dufour; Morgan Price; Jens H Weber; Thomas White; Kevin S Hughes; James C McClay; Carla Wood; Karen Eckert; Scott Bolte; David Shields; Peter R Tattam; Peter Scott; Zhijing Liu; Andrew K McIntyre Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2010-11-13
Authors: Jessica D Tenenbaum; Victoria Christian; Melissa A Cornish; Rowena J Dolor; Ashley A Dunham; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Virginia B Kraus; John G McHutchison; Meredith L Nahm; L Kristin Newby; Laura P Svetkey; Krishna Udayakumar; Robert M Califf Journal: Am J Transl Res Date: 2012-07-23 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Yihua Xu; Xiaofeng Zhou; Brandon T Suehs; Abraham G Hartzema; Michael G Kahn; Yola Moride; Brian C Sauer; Qing Liu; Keran Moll; Margaret K Pasquale; Vinit P Nair; Andrew Bate Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Maryam Y Garza; Michael Rutherford; Sahiti Myneni; Susan Fenton; Anita Walden; Umit Topaloglu; Eric Eisenstein; Karan R Kumar; Kanecia O Zimmerman; Mitra Rocca; Gideon Scott Gordon; Sam Hume; Zhan Wang; Meredith Zozus Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2021-01-25
Authors: P J Scott; M Rigby; E Ammenwerth; J Brender McNair; A Georgiou; H Hyppönen; N de Keizer; F Magrabi; P Nykänen; W T Gude; W Hackl Journal: Yearb Med Inform Date: 2017-09-11
Authors: Luke V Rasmussen; Pascal S Brandt; Guoqian Jiang; Richard C Kiefer; Jennifer A Pacheco; Prakash Adekkanattu; Jessica S Ancker; Fei Wang; Zhenxing Xu; Jyotishman Pathak; Yuan Luo Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2020-03-04
Authors: Gian Maria Zaccaria; Simone Ferrero; Samanta Rosati; Marco Ghislieri; Elisa Genuardi; Andrea Evangelista; Rebecca Sandrone; Cristina Castagneri; Daniela Barbero; Mariella Lo Schirico; Luca Arcaini; Anna Lia Molinari; Filippo Ballerini; Andres Ferreri; Paola Omedè; Alberto Zamò; Gabriella Balestra; Mario Boccadoro; Sergio Cortelazzo; Marco Ladetto Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-10