Literature DB >> 16862036

In search of the perfect comorbidity measure for use with administrative claims data: does it exist?

Laura-Mae Baldwin1, Carrie N Klabunde, Pam Green, William Barlow, George Wright.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Numerous measures of comorbidity have been developed for health services research with administrative claims.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the performance of 4 claims-based comorbidity measures. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
SUBJECTS: We undertook a retrospective cohort study of 5777 Medicare beneficiaries ages 66 and older with stage III colon cancer reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program between January 1, 1992 and December 31, 1996. MEASURES: Comorbidity measures included Elixhauser's set of 30 condition indicators, Klabunde's outpatient and inpatient indices weighted for colorectal cancer patients, Diagnostic Cost Groups, and the Adjusted Clinical Group (ACG) System. Outcomes included receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy and 2 year noncancer mortality.
RESULTS: For all measures, greater comorbidity significantly predicted lower receipt of chemotherapy and higher noncancer death. Nested logistic regression modeling suggests that using more claims sources to measure comorbidity generally improves the prediction of chemotherapy receipt and noncancer death, but depends on the measure type and outcome studied. All 4 comorbidity measures significantly improved the fit of baseline regression models for both chemotherapy receipt (baseline c-statistic 0.776; ranging from 0.779 after adding ACGs and Klabunde to 0.789 after Elixhauser) and noncancer death (baseline c-statistic 0.687; ranging from 0.717 after adding ACGs to 0.744 after Elixhauser).
CONCLUSIONS: Although some comorbidity measures demonstrate minor advantages over others, each is fairly robust in predicting both chemotherapy receipt and noncancer death. Investigators should choose among these measures based on their availability, comfort with the methodology, and outcomes of interest.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16862036      PMCID: PMC3124350          DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000223475.70440.07

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  22 in total

1.  Determining cause of death in prostate cancer: are death certificates valid?

Authors:  D F Penson; P C Albertsen; P S Nelson; M Barry; J L Stanford
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-12-05       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Racial differences in surgical evaluation, treatment, and outcome of locoregional esophageal cancer: a population-based analysis of elderly patients.

Authors:  Ewout W Steyerberg; Craig C Earle; Bridget A Neville; Jane C Weeks
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-01-20       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Comparison of the performance of two comorbidity measures, with and without information from prior hospitalizations.

Authors:  G J Stukenborg; D P Wagner; A F Connors
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Development of a comorbidity index using physician claims data.

Authors:  C N Klabunde; A L Potosky; J M Legler; J L Warren
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Can pharmacy data improve prediction of hospital outcomes? Comparisons with a diagnosis-based comorbidity measure.

Authors:  Joseph P Parker; Jeffrey S McCombs; Elizabeth A Graddy
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Using claims data to examine mortality trends following hospitalization for heart attack in Medicare.

Authors:  Arlene S Ash; Michael A Posner; Jeanne Speckman; Shakira Franco; Andrew C Yacht; Lindsey Bramwell
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  Surgeon volume compared to hospital volume as a predictor of outcome following primary colon cancer resection.

Authors:  Deborah Schrag; Katherine S Panageas; Elyn Riedel; Lillian Hsieh; Peter B Bach; Jose G Guillem; Colin B Begg
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.454

8.  Patient demographic and socioeconomic characteristics in the SEER-Medicare database applications and limitations.

Authors:  Peter B Bach; Edward Guadagnoli; Deborah Schrag; Nicola Schussler; Joan L Warren
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Assessing comorbidity using claims data: an overview.

Authors:  Carrie N Klabunde; Joan L Warren; Julie M Legler
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  The development and validation of a comorbidity index for prostate cancer among Black men.

Authors:  Steven T Fleming; Kevin A Pearce; Kathleen McDavid; Dmitri Pavlov
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 6.437

View more
  70 in total

1.  Risk factors for 90-day and 180-day mortality in hospitalised patients with pressure ulcers.

Authors:  Anna Flattau; Arthur E Blank
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 3.315

2.  Evaluation of guideline-concordant care for bipolar disorder among privately insured youth.

Authors:  Sara E Evans-Lacko; Susan Dosreis; Elizabeth A Kastelic; Cristiane S Paula; Donald M Steinwachs
Journal:  Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry       Date:  2010

3.  End-of-life care in Medicare beneficiaries dying with pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Kristin M Sheffield; Casey A Boyd; Jamie Benarroch-Gampel; Yong-Fang Kuo; Catherine D Cooksley; Taylor S Riall
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-04-14       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Evaluation of four comorbidity indices and Charlson comorbidity index adjustment for colorectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Stefano Marventano; Giuseppe Grosso; Antonio Mistretta; Marta Bogusz-Czerniewicz; Roberta Ferranti; Francesca Nolfo; Gabriele Giorgianni; Stefania Rametta; Filippo Drago; Francesco Basile; Antonio Biondi
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2014-07-27       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Using information on clinical conditions to predict high-cost patients.

Authors:  John A Fleishman; Joel W Cohen
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-01-27       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Using a health information exchange system for imaging information: patterns and predictors.

Authors:  Joshua R Vest; Zachary M Grinspan; Lisa M Kern; Thomas R Campion; Rainu Kaushal
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2013-11-16

7.  The impact of medical errors on ninety-day costs and outcomes: an examination of surgical patients.

Authors:  William E Encinosa; Fred J Hellinger
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-07-25       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Dissecting racial disparities in the treatment of patients with locoregional pancreatic cancer: a 2-step process.

Authors:  Taylor S Riall; Courtney M Townsend; Yong-Fang Kuo; Jean L Freeman; James S Goodwin
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Incremental value of using Medicaid claim files to study comorbid conditions and treatments in dually eligible beneficiaries.

Authors:  Cathy J Bradley; Bassam Dahman; Paul M Bataki; Siran Koroukian
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Use of Health Information Exchange and Repeat Imaging Costs.

Authors:  Hye-Young Jung; Joshua R Vest; Mark A Unruh; Lisa M Kern; Rainu Kaushal
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 5.532

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.