Literature DB >> 34482514

Methodical considerations on adjusting for Charlson Comorbidity Index in epidemiological studies.

Sören Möller1,2, Mette Bliddal3,4, Katrine Hass Rubin3,4.   

Abstract

Confounding by comorbidities is of concern in many epidemiological studies. To take this into account a common strategy is to calculate each participant's Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and use this for adjustment in regression analyses. Various CCI adjustment strategies are possible, and it is unclear, which is preferable. In this simulation study, we compared common adjustment strategies in Cox regression analyses to determine to which degree they mitigate confounding and conservative bias caused by missing adjustment for independent predictors. We found that adjustment for each comorbidity as separate dichotomous covariate is the preferable adjustment strategy in samples of sufficient size as this mitigates both bias sources to the largest degree. If this is impractical in smaller studies adjustment for CCI split into multiple categories is preferable. In conclusion, the choice of CCI adjustment strategy impacts mitigation of bias in this simulation study, and suboptimal adjustment strategies can cause an observable bias, although of quite limited magnitude of only a few percent in this simulation example. Researcher should be careful when deciding on the adjustment strategies applied to ensure that the desired mitigation of bias sources is achieved.
© 2021. Springer Nature B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Charlson Comorbidity Index; Confounder adjustment; Epidemiology; Regression models; Simulation

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34482514     DOI: 10.1007/s10654-021-00802-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0393-2990            Impact factor:   8.082


  11 in total

1.  Controversy and Debate : Questionable utility of the relative risk in clinical research: Paper 4 :Odds Ratios are far from "portable" - A call to use realistic models for effect variation in meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mengli Xiao; Haitao Chu; Stephen R Cole; Yong Chen; Richard F MacLehose; David B Richardson; Sander Greenland
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries.

Authors:  Hude Quan; Bing Li; Chantal M Couris; Kiyohide Fushimi; Patrick Graham; Phil Hider; Jean-Marie Januel; Vijaya Sundararajan
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 3.  A systematic review identifies valid comorbidity indices derived from administrative health data.

Authors:  Marko Yurkovich; J Antonio Avina-Zubieta; Jamie Thomas; Mike Gorenchtein; Diane Lacaille
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  The Charlson Index Is Insufficient to Control for Comorbidities in a National Trauma Registry.

Authors:  Audrey Renson; Marc A Bjurlin
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2018-12-31       Impact factor: 2.192

5.  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

Review 6.  Use of comorbidity scores for control of confounding in studies using administrative databases.

Authors:  S Schneeweiss; M Maclure
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 7.  Systematic review of comorbidity indices for administrative data.

Authors:  Mansour T A Sharabiani; Paul Aylin; Alex Bottle
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  The design of simulation studies in medical statistics.

Authors:  Andrea Burton; Douglas G Altman; Patrick Royston; Roger L Holder
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2006-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  The predictive value of ICD-10 diagnostic coding used to assess Charlson comorbidity index conditions in the population-based Danish National Registry of Patients.

Authors:  Sandra K Thygesen; Christian F Christiansen; Steffen Christensen; Timothy L Lash; Henrik T Sørensen
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-05-28       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.