ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Implementing a quality assurance and maintenance framework for standardized clinical terminology data in a multi-institutional setting.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEnsuring high-quality mapping between local terms and standard clinical terminologies is crucial for maximizing the value of real-world data (RWD). This study aimed to apply and evaluate a scalable quality assurance (QA) and maintenance framework for local-to-standard vocabulary mappings across multiple institutions.
methodsThe framework was operationalized through six data quality dimensions: validity, uniqueness, completeness, consistency, timeliness, and accuracy. Using a centralized terminology master within Kakao Healthcare (KHC)'s Universal Data Model (UDM), data from three hospitals were mapped and assessed based on standard frameworks. Validity checks identified format and reference errors within the reviewed code; uniqueness audits removed duplicates based on various composite key constraints; completeness analyses identified unmapped codes; and consistency was improved through intra- and inter-institutional harmonization. Timeliness was managed via regular updates aligned with current Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP CDM) and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) releases, and accuracy was ensured with expert review and adjudication.
resultsIssues in all six dimensions were resolved. The framework corrected format errors, removed redundancies, and bridged mapping gaps. Inter-institutional harmonization minimized semantic discrepancies, ensuring high-fidelity standardization across three hospitals.
conclusionsThis scalable framework ensures terminology mapping quality and data integrity. It provides a robust foundation for reliable research and operational use of multi-institutional RWD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.