OBJECTIVE: In real-world data (RWD), defining the observation period-the time during which a patient is considered observable-is critical for estimating incidence rates (IRs) and other outcomes. Yet, in the absence of explicit enrollment information, this period must often be inferred, introducing potential bias. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study evaluates methods for defining observation periods and their impact on IR estimates across multiple database types. We applied 3 methods for defining observation periods: (1) a persistence + surveillance window approach, (2) an age- and gender-adjusted method based on time between healthcare events, and (3) the min/max method. These were tested across 11 RWD databases, including both enrollment-based and encounter-based sources. Enrollment time was used as the reference standard in eligible databases. To assess the impact on epidemiologic results, we replicated a prior study of adverse event incidence, comparing IRs and calculating mean squared error between methods. RESULTS: Incidence rates decreased as observation periods lengthened, driven by increases in the person-time denominator. The persistence + surveillance method produced estimates closest to enrollment-based rates when appropriately balanced. The min/max approach yielded inconsistent results, particularly in encounter-based databases, with greater error observed in databases with longer time spans. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest that assumptions about data completeness and population observability significantly affect incidence estimates. Observation period definitions substantially influence outcome measurement in RWD studies. CONCLUSION: Standardized, transparent approaches are necessary to ensure valid, reproducible results-especially in databases lacking defined enrollment.

OBJECTIVE: Observational studies can impact patient care but must be robust and reproducible. Nonreproducibility is primarily caused by unclear reporting of design choices and analytic procedures. This study aimed to: (1) assess how the study logic described in an observational study could be interpreted by independent researchers and (2) quantify the impact of interpretations' variability on patient characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine teams of highly qualified researchers reproduced a cohort from a study by Albogami et al. The teams were provided the clinical codes and access to the tools to create cohort definitions such that the only variable part was their logic choices. We executed teams' cohort definitions against the database and compared the number of subjects, patient overlap, and patient characteristics. RESULTS: On average, the teams' interpretations fully aligned with the master implementation in 4 out of 10 inclusion criteria with at least 4 deviations per team. Cohorts' size varied from one-third of the master cohort size to 10 times the cohort size (2159-63 619 subjects compared to 6196 subjects). Median agreement was 9.4% (interquartile range 15.3-16.2%). The teams' cohorts significantly differed from the master implementation by at least 2 baseline characteristics, and most of the teams differed by at least 5. CONCLUSIONS: Independent research teams attempting to reproduce the study based on its free-text description alone produce different implementations that vary in the population size and composition. Sharing analytical code supported by a common data model and open-source tools allows reproducing a study unambiguously thereby preserving initial design choices.

OBJECTIVE: Health data standardized to a common data model (CDM) simplifies and facilitates research. This study examines the factors that make standardizing observational health data to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) CDM successful. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five data partners (DPs) from 11 countries received funding from the European Health Data Evidence Network (EHDEN) to standardize their data. Three surveys, DataQualityDashboard results, and statistics from the conversion process were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. Our measures of success were the total number of days to transform source data into the OMOP CDM and participation in network research. RESULTS: The health data converted to CDM represented more than 133 million patients. 100%, 88%, and 84% of DPs took Surveys 1, 2, and 3. The median duration of the 6 key extract, transform, and load (ETL) processes ranged from 4 to 115 days. Of the 25 DPs, 21 DPs were considered applicable for analysis of which 52% standardized their data on time, and 48% participated in an international collaborative study. DISCUSSION: This study shows that the consistent workflow used by EHDEN proves appropriate to support the successful standardization of observational data across Europe. Over the 25 successful transformations, we confirmed that getting the right people for the ETL is critical and vocabulary mapping requires specific expertise and support of tools. Additionally, we learned that teams that proactively prepared for data governance issues were able to avoid considerable delays improving their ability to finish on time. CONCLUSION: This study provides guidance for future DPs to standardize to the OMOP CDM and participate in distributed networks. We demonstrate that the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics community must continue to evaluate and provide guidance and support for what ultimately develops the backbone of how community members generate evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Advances in standardization of observational healthcare data have enabled methodological breakthroughs, rapid global collaboration, and generation of real-world evidence to improve patient outcomes. Standardizations in data structure, such as use of common data models, need to be coupled with standardized approaches for data quality assessment. To ensure confidence in real-world evidence generated from the analysis of real-world data, one must first have confidence in the data itself. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We describe the implementation of check types across a data quality framework of conformance, completeness, plausibility, with both verification and validation. We illustrate how data quality checks, paired with decision thresholds, can be configured to customize data quality reporting across a range of observational health data sources. We discuss how data quality reporting can become part of the overall real-world evidence generation and dissemination process to promote transparency and build confidence in the resulting output. RESULTS: The Data Quality Dashboard is an open-source R package that reports potential quality issues in an OMOP CDM instance through the systematic execution and summarization of over 3300 configurable data quality checks. DISCUSSION: Transparently communicating how well common data model-standardized databases adhere to a set of quality measures adds a crucial piece that is currently missing from observational research. CONCLUSION: Assessing and improving the quality of our data will inherently improve the quality of the evidence we generate.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses societal challenges that require expeditious data and knowledge sharing. Though organizational clinical data are abundant, these are largely inaccessible to outside researchers. Statistical, machine learning, and causal analyses are most successful with large-scale data beyond what is available in any given organization. Here, we introduce the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C), an open science community focused on analyzing patient-level data from many centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Clinical and Translational Science Award Program and scientific community created N3C to overcome technical, regulatory, policy, and governance barriers to sharing and harmonizing individual-level clinical data. We developed solutions to extract, aggregate, and harmonize data across organizations and data models, and created a secure data enclave to enable efficient, transparent, and reproducible collaborative analytics. RESULTS: Organized in inclusive workstreams, we created legal agreements and governance for organizations and researchers; data extraction scripts to identify and ingest positive, negative, and possible COVID-19 cases; a data quality assurance and harmonization pipeline to create a single harmonized dataset; population of the secure data enclave with data, machine learning, and statistical analytics tools; dissemination mechanisms; and a synthetic data pilot to democratize data access. CONCLUSIONS: The N3C has demonstrated that a multisite collaborative learning health network can overcome barriers to rapidly build a scalable infrastructure incorporating multiorganizational clinical data for COVID-19 analytics. We expect this effort to save lives by enabling rapid collaboration among clinicians, researchers, and data scientists to identify treatments and specialized care and thereby reduce the immediate and long-term impacts of COVID-19.