ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2026
A comparison of Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources and Observational Medical Mutcomes Partnership electronic health record data within the All of Us Research Program.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study compares the contents of two data standards; the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) and Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR), highlighting their strength and weaknesses and serve as an initial step toward understanding how each standard supports secondary data analysis. MATERIALS AND
methodsParticipant electronic health record data in both OMOP and FHIR formats from the All of Us Research Program (AoURP) were compared, including codeable event volume, healthcare encounters, and person timelines. A phenotype-based assessment was also conducted using Type-II Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM).
resultsAmong 29 512 participants identified with overlapping FHIR and OMOP data, Median codeable event counts were comparable between FHIR and OMOP within the Measurement (OMOP = 846; FHIR = 832), Drug (OMOP = 92; FHIR = 90), and Observation (OMOP = 65; FHIR = 100) domains, but were higher in OMOP within the Condition (OMOP = 258; FHIR = 11) and Procedure (OMOP = 72; FHIR = 4) domains. Within the T2DM cohort, OMOP contained more data, except for medications. Very few participants had encounters in FHIR (1.5%) relative to OMOP (97.0%). On average, only 15.9% of visit dates overlapped in both standards, with most visit dates occurring only in OMOP (65.3%) or only FHIR (18.4%). DISCUSSION: Data in OMOP showed a higher volume of observation and procedure codeable events, reported encounters, and T2DM symptoms, complications, and comorbidities. FHIR data was able to capture data across multiple providers and health systems.
conclusionBased on AoURP data, both standards were shown to support healthcare data capture, although OMOP shows greater utility for research purposes as its extract, transform, and load process enables more flexible data capture relative to extracting data from FHIR payloads. FHIR, however, captures patient-level data from beyond the health system and can thus be used to supplement OMOP.
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.