Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Multi-center observational studies require recognition and reconciliation of differences in patient representations arising from underlying populations, disparate coding practices and specifics of data capture. This leads to different granularity or detail of concepts representing the clinical facts. For researchers studying certain populations of interest, it is important to ensure that concepts at the right level are used for the definition of these populations. We studied the granularity of concepts within 22 data sources in the OHDSI network and calculated a composite granularity score for each dataset. Three alternative SNOMED-based approaches for such score showed consistency in classifying data sources into three levels of granularity (low, moderate and high), which correlated with the provenance of data and country of origin. However, they performed unsatisfactorily in ordering data sources within these groups and showed inconsistency for small data sources. Further studies on examining approaches to data source granularity are needed.


Journal article


Amia ... annual symposium proceedings. amia symposium

Publication Date





983 - 992


Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.


Humans, Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine, Information Storage and Retrieval, Databases, Factual