BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Abstracting information about comorbid illnesses from the medical record can be time-consuming, particularly when a large number of conditions are under consideration. We sought to determine which conditions are most prognostic and whether comorbidity continues to contribute to a survival model once laboratory and clinical parameters have been accounted for. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Comorbidity data were abstracted from the medical records of Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Pattern Study (DOPPS) I, II, and III participants using a standardized questionnaire. Models that were composed of different combinations of comorbid conditions and case-mix factors were compared for explained variance (R(2)) and discrimination (c statistic). RESULTS: Seventeen comorbid conditions account for 96% of the total explained variance that would result if 45 comorbidities that were expected to be predictive of survival were added to a demographics-adjusted survival model. These conditions together had more discriminatory power (c statistic 0.67) than age alone (0.63) or serum albumin (0.60) and were equivalent to a combination of routine laboratory and clinical parameters (0.67). The strength of association of the individual comorbidities lessened when laboratory/clinical parameters were added, but all remained significant. The total R(2) of a model adjusted for demographics and laboratory/clinical parameters increased from 0.13 to 0.17 upon addition of comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively small list of comorbid conditions provides equivalent discrimination and explained variance for survival as a more extensive characterization of comorbidity. Comorbidity adds to the survival model a modest amount of independent prognostic information that cannot be substituted by clinical/laboratory parameters.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Abstracting information about comorbid illnesses from the medical record can be time-consuming, particularly when a large number of conditions are under consideration. We sought to determine which conditions are most prognostic and whether comorbidity continues to contribute to a survival model once laboratory and clinical parameters have been accounted for. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Comorbidity data were abstracted from the medical records of Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Pattern Study (DOPPS) I, II, and III participants using a standardized questionnaire. Models that were composed of different combinations of comorbid conditions and case-mix factors were compared for explained variance (R(2)) and discrimination (c statistic). RESULTS: Seventeen comorbid conditions account for 96% of the total explained variance that would result if 45 comorbidities that were expected to be predictive of survival were added to a demographics-adjusted survival model. These conditions together had more discriminatory power (c statistic 0.67) than age alone (0.63) or serum albumin (0.60) and were equivalent to a combination of routine laboratory and clinical parameters (0.67). The strength of association of the individual comorbidities lessened when laboratory/clinical parameters were added, but all remained significant. The total R(2) of a model adjusted for demographics and laboratory/clinical parameters increased from 0.13 to 0.17 upon addition of comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively small list of comorbid conditions provides equivalent discrimination and explained variance for survival as a more extensive characterization of comorbidity. Comorbidity adds to the survival model a modest amount of independent prognostic information that cannot be substituted by clinical/laboratory parameters.
Authors: D C Miskulin; N V Athienites; G Yan; A A Martin; D B Ornt; J W Kusek; K B Meyer; A S Levey Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Dana C Miskulin; Klemens B Meyer; Alice A Martin; Nancy E Fink; Josef Coresh; Neil R Powe; Michael J Klag; Andrew S Levey Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Dana C Miskulin; Klemens B Meyer; Nicolaos V Athienites; Alice A Martin; Norma Terrin; Jane V Marsh; Nancy E Fink; Josef Coresh; Neil R Powe; Mike J Klag; Andrew S Levey Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Jeannette G Van Manen; Johanna C Korevaar; Friedo W Dekker; Elisabeth W Boeschoten; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Raymond T Krediet Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Garabed Eknoyan; Gerald J Beck; Alfred K Cheung; John T Daugirdas; Tom Greene; John W Kusek; Michael Allon; James Bailey; James A Delmez; Thomas A Depner; Johanna T Dwyer; Andrew S Levey; Nathan W Levin; Edgar Milford; Daniel B Ornt; Michael V Rocco; Gerald Schulman; Steve J Schwab; Brendan P Teehan; Robert Toto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-12-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeannette G van Manen; Johanna C Korevaar; Friedo W Dekker; Elisabeth W Boeschoten; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Raymond T Krediet Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Martin Wagner; David Ansell; David M Kent; John L Griffith; David Naimark; Christoph Wanner; Navdeep Tangri Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Mara A McAdams-Demarco; Andrew Law; Jacqueline M Garonzik-Wang; Luis Gimenez; Bernard G Jaar; Jeremy D Walston; Dorry L Segev Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Suetonia C Palmer; Kannaiyan S Rabindranath; Jonathan C Craig; Paul J Roderick; Francesco Locatelli; Giovanni F M Strippoli Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-09-12
Authors: Louise M Moist; Heather A Richards; Dana Miskulin; Charmaine E Lok; Karen Yeates; Amit X Garg; Lilyanna Trpeski; Ann Chapman; Joseph Amuah; Brenda R Hemmelgarn Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Manish M Sood; Maria Larkina; Jyothi R Thumma; Francesca Tentori; Brenda W Gillespie; Shunichi Fukuhara; David C Mendelssohn; Kevin Chan; Patricia de Sequera; Paul Komenda; Claudio Rigatto; Bruce M Robinson Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 10.612