4.6 Article

A manual of guidelines to score the modified cumulative illness rating scale and its validation in acute hospitalized elderly patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 56, 期 10, 页码 1926-1931

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01935.x

关键词

cIRS; guidelines; comorbidity; illness severity mortality

资金

  1. University of Ancona

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: TO update previous guidelines to score the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) and test their usefulness in hospitalized elderly patients. DESIGN: The CIRS was scored retrospectively in a cohort of elderly patients followed for 18 months. SETTING: An acute internal medicine ward in an academic tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred eighty-seven patients 65 and older aged MEASUREMENTS: The CIRS was retrospectively scored for the enrolled patients. Intrarater and interrater reliability were calculated. Two Illness severity indices (total score (TSC) and severity (SV)) and one comorbidity index (CM) were obtained. Clinical features and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) variables were also used. All patients underwent an 18-month follow-up for mortality and rehospitalization. RESULTS: Intrarater and interrater reliability of the CIRS scored following the guidelines was good (intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.83 and 0.81, respectively). The TSC, SV, and CM correlated with clinical features (laboratory values, medication usage, and length of in-hospital stay) and CGA variables (cognitive impairment, depression and disability). All three indices were able to predict 18-month mortality and rehospitalization rates. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed the validity of the CIRS as an indicator of health status and demonstrated its ability to predict 18-month mortality and rehospitalization in hospitalized elderly patients. The availability of detailed guidelines for scoring the CIRS can improve its usefulness and facilitate more-widespread use for research and clinical aims.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据