Literature DB >> 29176931

On the Use of Summary Comorbidity Measures for Prognosis and Survival Treatment Effect Estimation.

Elizabeth A Gilbert1, Robert T Krafty2, Richard J Bleicher3, Brian L Egleston4.   

Abstract

Prognostic scores have been proposed as outcome based confounder adjustment scores akin to propensity scores. However, prognostic scores have not been widely used in the substantive literature. Instead, comorbidity scores, which are limited versions of prognostic scores, have been used extensively by clinical and health services researchers. A comorbidity is an existing disease an individual has in addition to a primary condition of interest, such as cancer. Comorbidity scores are used to reduce the dimension of a vector of comorbidity variables into a single scalar variable. Such scores are often added to regression models with other non-comorbidity variables such as age and sex, both for analyzing prognosis and for confounder adjustment when analyzing treatment effects. Despite their widespread use, the properties of and conditions under which comorbidity scores are valid dimension reduction tools in statistical models is largely unknown. In this article, we show that under relatively standard assumptions, comorbidity scores can have equal prognostic and confounder-adjustment abilities as the individual comorbidity variables, but that biases can occur if there are additional effects, such as interactions, of covariates beyond that captured by the comorbidity score. Simulations were performed to illustrate empirical properties and a data example using breast cancer data from the SEER Medicare Database demonstrates the application of these results.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Comorbidity scores; Confounding adjustment; Prognostic scores; Summary measures

Year:  2017        PMID: 29176931      PMCID: PMC5697800          DOI: 10.1007/s10742-017-0171-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol        ISSN: 1387-3741


  15 in total

Review 1.  Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors.

Authors:  F E Harrell; K L Lee; D B Mark
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-02-28       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data.

Authors:  A Elixhauser; C Steiner; D R Harris; R M Coffey
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  A Simple Method for Evaluating Within Sample Prognostic Balance Achieved by Published Comorbidity Summary Measures.

Authors:  Brian L Egleston; Robert G Uzzo; J Robert Beck; Yu-Ning Wong
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-12-18       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

5.  Use and outcomes of adjuvant chemotherapy in older women with breast cancer.

Authors:  Sharon H Giordano; Zhigang Duan; Yong-Fang Kuo; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; James S Goodwin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-06-20       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Generalizing observational study results: applying propensity score methods to complex surveys.

Authors:  Eva H Dugoff; Megan Schuler; Elizabeth A Stuart
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-07-16       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  A comparison of Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity measures to predict colorectal cancer survival using administrative health data.

Authors:  Jessica R Lieffers; Vickie E Baracos; Marcy Winget; Konrad Fassbender
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-12-22       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data.

Authors:  Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.983

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

Authors:  Steven R Austin; Yu-Ning Wong; Robert G Uzzo; J Robert Beck; Brian L Egleston
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Relaxing the independent censoring assumption in the Cox proportional hazards model using multiple imputation.

Authors:  Dan Jackson; Ian R White; Shaun Seaman; Hannah Evans; Kathy Baisley; James Carpenter
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 2.373

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.