To gain insight into the real-life care of patients in the healthcare system, data from hospital information systems and insurance systems are required. Consequently, linking clinical data with claims data is necessary. To ensure their syntactic and semantic interoperability, the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM) was chosen. However, there is no detailed guide that would allow researchers to follow a consistent process for data harmonization. Thus, the aim of this paper is to conceptualize a generic data harmonization process for OMOP CDM. For this purpose, we conducted a literature review focusing on publications that address the harmonization of clinical or claims data in OMOP CDM. Subsequently, the process steps used and their chronological order were extracted for each included publication. The results were then compared to derive a generic sequence of the process steps. From 23 publications included, a generic data harmonization process for OMOP CDM was conceptualized, consisting of nine process steps: dataset specification, data profiling, vocabulary identification, coverage analysis of vocabularies, semantic mapping, structural mapping, extract-transform-load-process, qualitative and quantitative data quality analysis. This process can be used as a step-by-step guide to assist other researchers in harmonizing source data in OMOP CDM.

Background: Observational health data has the potential to be a rich resource to inform clinical practice and regulatory decision making. However, the lack of standard data quality processes makes it difficult to know if these data are research ready. The EHDEN COVID-19 Rapid Col-laboration Call presented the opportunity to assess how the newly developed open-source tool Data Quality Dashboard (DQD) informs the quality of data in a federated network. Methods: 15 Data Partners (DPs) from 10 different countries worked with the EHDEN taskforce to map their data to the OMOP CDM. Throughout the process at least two DQD results were collected and compared for each DP. Results: All DPs showed an improvement in their data quality between the first and last run of the DQD. The DQD excelled at helping DPs identify and fix conformance is-sues but showed less of an impact on completeness and plausibility checks. Conclusions: This is the first study to apply the DQD on multiple, disparate databases across a network. While study-specific checks should still be run, we recommend that all data holders converting their data to the OMOP CDM use the DQD as it ensures conformance to the model specifications and that a database meets a baseline level of completeness and plausibility for use in research.