Why Summary Comorbidity Measures Such As the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Elixhauser Score Work

Abstract

Background Comorbidity adjustment is an important component of health services research and clinical prognosis. When adjusting for comorbidities in statistical models, researchers can include comorbidities individually or through the use of summary measures such as the Charlson Comorbidity Index or Elixhauser score. We examined the conditions under which individual versus summary measures are most appropriate. Methods We provide an analytic proof of the utility of comorbidity summary measures when used in place of individual comorbidities. We compared the use of the Charlson and Elixhauser scores versus individual comorbidities in prognostic models using a SEER-Medicare data example. We examined the ability of summary comorbidity measures to adjust for confounding using simulations. Results We devised a mathematical proof that found that the comorbidity summary measures are appropriate prognostic or adjustment mechanisms in survival analyses. Once one knows the comorbidity score, no other information about the comorbidity variables used to create the score is generally needed. Our data example and simulations largely confirmed this finding. Conclusions Summary comorbidity measures, such as the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Elixhauser scores, are commonly used for clinical prognosis and comorbidity adjustment. We have provided a theoretical justification that validates the use of such scores under many conditions. Our simulations generally confirm the utility of the summary comorbidity measures as substitutes for use of the individual comorbidity variables in health services research. One caveat is that a summary measure may only be as good as the variables used to create it.

A pilot single-institution predictive model to guide rib fracture management in elderly patients

“…Each of these requires up to 31 different International Classification of Diseases, 9th/10th Revision diagnoses but does not include any measures on nutritional or physiologic reserve. 19 We included many of the most common variables in these two indices in our analysis but also added nutritional and physiologic data points for a more complete view of the patient's ability to perform the work of breathing.…”

“…Predictive models suggest an increase in the percentage of elderly members of the population from 12.4% in 2000 to 19.6% in 2030. 1 The U.S. Census Bureau expects the elderly population (aged Q65 years) to increase from 40 to 81 million between 2010 and 2040, becoming the fastest growing cohort in the United States.…”

Implementation of the Canadian CT Head Rule and Its Association With Use of Computed Tomography Among Patients With Head Injury

“…Patient variables included age, race, sex, GCS score, chronic conditions (represented by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index), 15,16 vomiting, anticoagulant use, alcohol intoxication (serum alcohol level >80 mg/dL), and arrival by emergency medical services (EMS). Patient information was collected by computerized query of structured data fields.…”

Mortality Risk Prediction

“…We explored the extent to which long-term survival prediction over 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25-year time horizons could be improved with a brief battery of psychosocial questionnaire items. We focused on a widely studied prognostic model for mortality: the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), which involves age, sex, and disease profile 22,23 . Specifically, our goal was to first identify strong psychosocial prognostic factors, then use these variables to construct a psychosocially-augmented version of the CCI, and finally compare its predictive performance to the traditional CCI across a comprehensive set of criteria.…”