Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Validation of the Combined Comorbidity Index of Charlson and Elixhauser to Predict 30-Day Mortality Across ICD-9 and ICD-10
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Validation of the Combined Comorbidity Index of Charlson and Elixhauser to Predict 30-Day Mortality Across ICD-9 and ICD-10
Do you wish to request the book?
Validation of the Combined Comorbidity Index of Charlson and Elixhauser to Predict 30-Day Mortality Across ICD-9 and ICD-10
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Validation of the Combined Comorbidity Index of Charlson and Elixhauser to Predict 30-Day Mortality Across ICD-9 and ICD-10
2018
Overview
OBJECTIVES:To validate and compare performance of an International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD-10) version of a combined comorbidity index merging conditions of Charlson and Elixhauser measures against individual measures in the prediction of 30-day mortality. To select a weight derivation method providing optimal performance across ICD-9 and ICD-10 coding systems.
RESEARCH DESIGN:Using 2 adult population-based cohorts of patients with hospital admissions in ICD-9 (2005, n=337,367) and ICD-10 (2011, n=348,820), we validated a combined comorbidity index by predicting 30-day mortality with logistic regression. To appreciate performance of the Combined index and both individual measures, factors impacting indices performance such as population characteristics and weight derivation methods were accounted for. We applied 3 scoring methods (Van Walraven, Schneeweiss, and Charlson) and determined which provides best predictive values.
RESULTS:Combined index [c-statistics0.853 (95% confidence intervalCI, 0.848–0.856)] performed better than original Charlson [0.841 (95% CI, 0.835–0.844)] or Elixhauser [0.841 (95% CI, 0.837–0.844)] measures on ICD-10 cohort. All weight derivation methods provided close high discrimination results for the Combined index (Van Walraven0.852, Schneeweiss0.851, Charlson0.849). Results were consistent across both coding systems.
CONCLUSIONS:The Combined index remains valid with both ICD-9 and ICD-10 coding systems and the 3 weight derivation methods evaluated provided consistent high performance across those coding systems.
Publisher
Copyright Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved,Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Ovid Technologies
