4.6 Article

Comparative analysis of methods for identifying multimorbidity patterns: a study of 'real-world' data

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018986

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Instituto de Salud Carlos III of the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Spain) through the Network for Prevention and Health Promotion in Primary Health Care (redIAPP) [RD12/0005/0001, RD16/0007/001]
  2. European Union ERDF funds
  3. ISCiii [PI12/00427]
  4. National Institute for Health Research Clinician Scientist Award [NIHR/CS/010/024]
  5. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [NIHR/CS/010/024] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The aim was to compare multimorbidity patterns identified with the two most commonly used methods: hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in a large primary care database. Specific objectives were: (1) to determine whether choice of method affects the composition of these patterns and (2) to consider the potential application of each method in the clinical setting. Design Cross-sectional study. Diagnoses were based on the 263 corresponding blocks of the International Classification of Diseases version 10. Multimorbidity patterns were identified using HCA and EFA. Analysis was stratified by sex, and results compared for each method. Setting and participants Electronic health records for 408 994 patients with multimorbidity aged 45-64 years in 274 primary health care teams from 2010 in Catalonia, Spain. Results HCA identified 53 clusters for women, with just 12 clusters including at least 2 diagnoses, and 15 clusters for men, all of them including at least two diagnoses. EFA showed 9 factors for women and 10 factors for men. We observed differences by sex and method of analysis, although some patterns were consistent. Three combinations of diseases were observed consistently across sex groups and across both methods: hypertension and obesity, spondylopathies and deforming dorsopathies, and dermatitis eczema and mycosis. Conclusions This study showed that multimorbidity patterns vary depending on the method of analysis used (HCA vs EFA) and provided new evidence about the known limitations of attempts to compare multimorbidity patterns in real-world data studies. We found that EFA was useful in describing comorbidity relationships and HCA could be useful for in-depth study of multimorbidity. Our results suggest possible applications for each of these methods in clinical and research settings, and add information about some aspects that must be considered in standardisation of future studies: spectrum of diseases, data usage and methods of analysis.

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