BACKGROUND: Many clinical and health services research studies are longitudinal, raising questions about how best to use an individual's comorbidity measurements over time to predict survival. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of different approaches to longitudinal comorbidity measurement in predicting survival, and to examine strategies for addressing the inevitable issue of missing data. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using Cox regression analysis to examine the association between various Romano-Charlson comorbidity measures and survival. SUBJECTS: Fifty thousand cancer-free individuals aged 66 or older enrolled in Medicare between 1991 and 1999 for at least 1 year. RESULTS: The best fitting model combined both time independent baseline comorbidity and the time dependent prior year comorbidity measure. The worst fitting model included baseline comorbidity only. Overall, the models fit best when using the "rolling" comorbidity measures that assumed chronic conditions persisted rather than measures using only prior year's recorded diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal comorbidity is an important predictor of survival, and investigators should make use of individuals' longitudinal comorbidity data in their regression modeling.
BACKGROUND: Many clinical and health services research studies are longitudinal, raising questions about how best to use an individual's comorbidity measurements over time to predict survival. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of different approaches to longitudinal comorbidity measurement in predicting survival, and to examine strategies for addressing the inevitable issue of missing data. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using Cox regression analysis to examine the association between various Romano-Charlson comorbidity measures and survival. SUBJECTS: Fifty thousand cancer-free individuals aged 66 or older enrolled in Medicare between 1991 and 1999 for at least 1 year. RESULTS: The best fitting model combined both time independent baseline comorbidity and the time dependent prior year comorbidity measure. The worst fitting model included baseline comorbidity only. Overall, the models fit best when using the "rolling" comorbidity measures that assumed chronic conditions persisted rather than measures using only prior year's recorded diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal comorbidity is an important predictor of survival, and investigators should make use of individuals' longitudinal comorbidity data in their regression modeling.
Authors: Cristina Rius; Gloria Pérez; José Miguel Martínez; Mara Bares; Anna Schiaffino; Rosa Gispert; Esteve Fernández Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Tim E Byers; Holly J Wolf; Katrina R Bauer; Susan Bolick-Aldrich; Vivien W Chen; Jack L Finch; John P Fulton; Maria J Schymura; Tiefu Shen; Scott Van Heest; Xiang Yin Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Scarlett Lin Gomez; Cynthia D O'Malley; Antoinette Stroup; Sarah J Shema; William A Satariano Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2007-10-16 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Elizabeth A Bayliss; Patrick J Blatchford; Sophia R Newcomer; John F Steiner; Diane L Fairclough Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mary N Haan; Anne Lee; Michelle C Odden; Allison E Aiello; Tu My To; John M Neuhaus Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Hemalkumar B Mehta; Francesca Dimou; Deepak Adhikari; Nina P Tamirisa; Eric Sieloff; Taylor P Williams; Yong-Fang Kuo; Taylor S Riall Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Allen Kraut; Randy Fransoo; Kendiss Olafson; Clare D Ramsey; Marina Yogendran; Allan Garland Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-10-14 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Peter Rymkiewicz; Pietro Ravani; Brenda R Hemmelgarn; Finlay A McAlister; Danielle A Southern; Robin Walker; Guanmin Chen; Hude Quan Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Paolo Fraccaro; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Matthew Sperrin; Niels Peek; Christian Mallen; Philip Urban; Iain E Buchan; Mamas A Mamas Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 1.889