The present critical review was conducted to evaluate the clinimetric properties of the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), an assessment tool designed specifically to predict long-term mortality, with regard to its reliability, concurrent validity, sensitivity, incremental and predictive validity. The original version of the CCI has been adapted for use with different sources of data, ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. The inter-rater reliability of the CCI was found to be excellent, with extremely high agreement between self-report and medical charts. The CCI has also been shown either to have concurrent validity with a number of other prognostic scales or to result in concordant predictions. Importantly, the clinimetric sensitivity of the CCI has been demonstrated in a variety of medical conditions, with stepwise increases in the CCI associated with stepwise increases in mortality. The CCI is also characterized by the clinimetric property of incremental validity, whereby adding the CCI to other measures increases the overall predictive accuracy. It has been shown to predict long-term mortality in different clinical populations, including medical, surgical, intensive care unit (ICU), trauma, and cancer patients. It may also predict in-hospital mortality, although in some instances, such as ICU or trauma patients, the CCI did not perform as well as other instruments designed specifically for that purpose. The CCI thus appears to be clinically useful not only to provide a valid assessment of the patient’s unique clinical situation, but also to demarcate major diagnostic and prognostic differences among subgroups of patients sharing the same medical diagnosis.

BackgroundMental pain, defined as a subjective experience characterized by perception of strong negative feelings and changes in the self and its function, is no less real than other types of grief. Mental pain has been considered to be a distinct entity from depression. We have performed a systematic review analyzing the relationship between mental pain and suicide by providing a qualitative data synthesis of the studies.MethodsWe have conducted, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search for the literature in PubMed, Web Of Science, and Scopus. Search terms were “mental pain” “OR” “psychological pain” OR “psychache” combined with the Boolean “AND” operator with “suicid*.” In addition, a manual search of the literature, only including the term “psychache,” was performed on Google Scholar for further studies not yet identified.ResultsInitial search identified 1450 citations. A total of 42 research reports met the predefined inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Mental pain was found to be a significant predictive factor of suicide risk, even in the absence of a diagnosed mental disorder. Specifically, mental pain is a stronger factor of vulnerability of suicidal ideation than depression.ConclusionMental pain is a core clinical factor for understanding suicide, both in the context of mood disorders and independently from depression. Health care professionals need to be aware of the higher suicidal risk in patients reporting mental pain. In this regard, psychological assessment should include a clinimetric evaluation of mental pain in order to further detect its contribution to suicidal tendency.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are self-rated scales and indices developed to improve the detection of the patients’ subjective experience. Given that a considerable number of PROMs are available, it is important to evaluate their validity and usefulness in a specific research or clinical setting. Published guidelines, based on psychometric criteria, do not fit in with the complexity of clinical challenges, because of their quest for homogeneity of components and inadequate attention to sensitivity. Psychometric theory has stifled the field and led to the routine use of scales widely accepted yet with a history of poor performance. Clinimetrics, the science of clinical measurements, may provide a more suitable conceptual and methodological framework. The aims of this paper are to outline the major limitations of the psychometric model and to provide criteria for clinimetric patient-reported outcome measures (CLIPROMs). The characteristics related to reliability, sensitivity, validity, and clinical utility of instruments are critically reviewed, with particular reference to the differences between clinimetric and psychometric approaches. Of note is the fact that PROMs, rating scales, and indices developed according to psychometric criteria may display relevant clinimetric properties. The present paper underpins the importance of the clini­metric methodology in choosing the appropriate PROMs. CLIPROM criteria may also guide the development of new indices and the validation of existing PROMs to be employed in clinical settings.