4.5 Article

Charlson Comorbidity Index Based On Hospital Episode Statistics Performs Adequately In Predicting Mortality, But Its Discriminative Ability Diminishes Over Time

期刊

CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 923-932

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/CLEP.S218697

关键词

mortality; comorbidity; follow-up studies; hospitalization/statistics and numerical data; drug prescriptions/statistics and numerical data; confounding factors

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [132385, 260 931]
  2. Cancer Society of Finland
  3. Pirkanmaa Hospital District Competitive Research Funding [9V065]
  4. Academy of Finland (AKA) [132385, 132385] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) calculated using hospitalization and medication reimbursement databases in predicting mortality. Patients and methods: Information on hospitalizations was obtained from the national Care Register for Health Care (HILMO) and on medication reimbursements and entitlements for special reimbursements for medications from the Social Insurance Institution for 77,440 men aged 56-71 years at baseline. The subjects were followed up for mortality via Statistics Finland with 20,562 deaths during a 13-year follow-up. Results: Compared to a CCI score of 0, the age-adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality associated with HILMO-based CCI scores of 1, 2 and 3 or more were 2.39 (95% CI 2.29-2.49), 2.96 (95% CI 2.81-3.13) and 6.42 (95% CI 5.95-6.93) at 13 years. The C-statistic was 0.72 at 1, 0.68 at 5 and 0.66 at 13 years, with only minor improvement over age alone (0.10, 0.06 and 0.04 accordingly). Addition of medication data did not improve predictive abilities and medication-based CCI performed poorly on its own. Conclusion: The hospitalization-based CCI, as well as that based on both databases, predicts relative mortality adequately, but its discriminative ability diminishes over time. Conditions related to hospitalizations affect survival more than medications.

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

4.5
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