4.6 Article

A combined comorbidity score predicted mortality in elderly patients better than existing scores

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 64, Issue 7, Pages 749-759

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.004

Keywords

Comorbidity; Bias; Claims data; Medicare; Health services research; Mortality

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging [RO1-AG018833, T32-AG000158]
  2. National Library of Medicine [R01-LM10213]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To develop and validate a single numerical comorbidity score for predicting short- and long-term mortality, by combining conditions in the Charlson and Elixhauser measures. Study Design and Setting: In a cohort of 120,679 Pennsylvania Medicare enrollees with drug coverage through a pharmacy assistance program, we developed a single numerical comorbidity score for predicting 1-year mortality, by combining the conditions in the Charlson and Elixhauser Measures. We externally validated the combined score in a cohort of New Jersey Medicare enrollees, by comparing its performance to that of both component scores in predicting 1-year mortality, as well as 180-, 90-, and 30-day mortality. Results: C-statistics from logistic regression models including the combined score were higher than corresponding c-statistics from models including either the Romano implementation of the Charlson Index or the single numerical version of the Elixhauser system; c-statistics were 0.860 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.854, 0.866), 0.839 (95% CI: 0.836, 0.849), and 0.836 (95% CI: 0.834, 0.847), respectively, for the 30-day mortality outcome. The combined comorbidity score also yielded positive values for two recently proposed measures of reclassification. Conclusion: In similar populations and data settings, the combined score may offer improvements in comorbidity summarization over existing scores. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available