OHDSI Home | Forums | Wiki | Github

NDC 11917% concept to standard concept

Hi All,

Attached is the data include my finding of 79 NDC codes that’s start from “11917” having odd concept_relationship by “Maps to” relationship_id. The data is from physician prescription database in outpatient setting. The source code tight with source_code_description and is mapped with NDC that exist in two tables (“medication” and “medicationde”) in the same database.

When I compared the source_code_description and ndc_name which is stored in OMOP, these seems make sense. However, when I compared the “ndc_name” and “Maps_to name” which I mapped by using concept_relationship table with relationship_id = ‘Maps_to’, they don’t make sense.

Is that because these NDC concept_name in OMOP changed in the past and the “Maps to” information was not updated?

Can someone check your database and check the source descriptions for the NDC starts from “11917”? Please report if you find some discrepancy between NDC and “Maps to” concept.

In the attached file, I also included “suggested_concept_id” column for “Maps to” relationship_id. Please feel free to correct if you have a better data for “Maps to” relationship_id.


----please add your source description info in the query below if you have one----
from drug_exposure de
left join concept c1 on c1.concept_code = drug_source_value and c1.vocabulary_id in (‘NDC’)
left join concept_relationship r on r.concept_id_1 = c1.concept_id and r.relationship_id = ‘Maps to’
left join concept c2 on c2.concept_id = r.concept_id_2 and c2.vocabulary_id in ( ‘RxNorm’,‘RxNorm Extension’,‘NDC’, ‘SNOMED’) and c2.standard_concept = ‘S’
where drug_source_value like ‘11917%’
group by
order by c1.concept_name
OHDSI_concept_relationship_11917.xlsx (36.0 KB)

despite the fact that is the old thread, it seems that the problem still exists (at least, among NDC codes starting from ‘11917’).

I have found some strange things as well:

select distinct c.concept_id as ndc_id, c.concept_code as ndc_code, c.concept_name as ndc_name, 
r.relationship_id, d.concept_id, d.concept_id, d.concept_name 
from concept c 
join concept_relationship r on r.concept_id_1 = c.concept_id
join concept d on d.concept_id = r.concept_id_2
where r.invalid_reason is null 
and c.vocabulary_id = 'NDC'
and r.relationship_id = 'Maps to'
and c.concept_code ~ '^11917'
order by c.concept_name;

@Alexdavv, have you had a chance to look at the xlsx file provided by @shinjinaka?
And what do you think about such mappings for devices (see them using the query above)?

There were some similar requests where we fixed mappings like that.
The problem most likely is that we had used some obscure sources, and then the concepts got updated names that are irrelevant to old mappings.
I think it’s not a reuse per se. It’s more likely conflicting codes used in local systems. And all these codes are not supposed to be a part of FDA/Rxlist distribution.
Devices are a good search pattern since we don’t expect any mapping for them.

@mik I think we plan to talk to FDA/RxNorm people about this problem