How to measure comorbiditya critical review of available methods

Abstract

The object of this article was to systematically review available methods to measure comorbidity and to assess their validity and reliability. A search was made in Medline and Embase, with the keywords comorbidity and multi-morbidity, to identify articles in which a method to measure comorbidity was described. The references of these articles were also checked, and using a standardized checklist the relevant data were extracted from these articles. An assessment was made of the content, concurrent, predictive and construct validity, and the reliability. Thirteen different methods to measure comorbidity were identified: one disease count and 12 indexes. Data on content and predictive validity were available for all measures, while data on construct validity were available for nine methods, data on concurrent validity, and interrater reliability for eight methods, and data on intrarater reliability for three methods. The Charlson Index is the most extensively studied comorbidity index for predicting mortality. The Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) addresses all relevant body systems without using specific diagnoses. The Index of Coexisting Disease (ICED) has a two-dimensional structure, measuring disease severity and disability, which can be useful when mortality and disability are the outcomes of interest. The Kaplan Index was specifically developed for use in diabetes research. The Charlson Index, the CIRS, the ICED and the Kaplan Index are valid and reliable methods to measure comorbidity that can be used in clinical research. For the other indexes, insufficient data on the clinimetric properties are available.

Features and outcomes of unplanned hospital admissions of older people due to ill-defined (R-coded) conditions: Retrospective analysis of hospital admissions data in England

“…This does not preclude chronic disease being the underlying cause of the admissions, but does make identification of those at risk problematic and does not indicate that improved chronic disease management would have a specific effect on these admissions. It should however be noted that co-morbidity was measured in this study by a simple count of the number of diagnoses at discharge, a common method of assessing overall chronic disease burden [24]. However, it is known that discharge summaries (on which disease coding is based) tend to under-represent secondary and underlying conditions.…”

National Trends in Nonstatin Use and Expenditures Among the US Adult Population From 2002 to 2013: Insights From Medical Expenditure Panel Survey

“…We had 5 categories of race and ethnicity: “non‐Hispanic white,” “non‐Hispanic black,” “Hispanic,” “Asian,” and “Other” (American Indian, Alaska Native, and those who reported multiple race); Five categories of family income level as a proportion of the federal poverty level (FPL): poor (<100% of FPL), near‐poor (100% to <125% of FPL), low income (125% to <200% of FPL), middle income (200% to <400% of FPL), and high income (≥400% of FPL). We estimated participant's comorbidity burden using the Grouped Charlson Comorbidity Index, which has been described extensively elsewhere 13, 14. For our analysis, however, we modified the Grouped Charlson Comorbidity Index by excluding acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, and diabetes mellitus to avoid collinearity in our regression analyses.…”

Association Between Changes in Hemoglobin Concentration and Cardiovascular Risks and All‐Cause Mortality Among Young Women

“…The Charlson Comorbidity Index is well established for predicting mortality 18. Cancer and chronic kidney disease prevalence were analyzed because anemia is regarded as a comorbidity of these diseases.…”