Dataset Information

Simple Excel and ICD-10 based dataset calculator for the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Charlson and Elixhauser Comorbidity Indices are the most widely used comorbidity assessment methods in medical research. Both methods are adapted for use with the International Classification of Diseases, which 10th revision (ICD-10) is used by over a hundred countries in the world. Available Charlson and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index calculating methods are limited to a few applications with command-line user interfaces, all requiring specific programming language skills. This study aims to use Microsoft Excel to develop a non-programming and ICD-10 based dataset calculator for Charlson and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index and to validate its results with R- and SAS-based methods.

Methods

The Excel-based dataset calculator was developed using the program's formulae, ICD-10 coding algorithms, and different weights of the Charlson and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index. Real, population-wide, nine-year spanning, index hip fracture data from the Estonian Health Insurance Fund was used for validating the calculator. The Excel-based calculator's output values and processing speed were compared to R- and SAS-based methods.

Results

A total of 11,491 hip fracture patients' comorbidities were used for validating the Excel-based calculator. The Excel-based calculator's results were consistent, revealing no discrepancies, with R- and SAS-based methods while comparing 192,690 and 353,265 output values of Charlson and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, respectively. The Excel-based calculator's processing speed was slower but differing only from a few seconds up to four minutes with datasets including 6250-200,000 patients.

Conclusions

This study proposes a novel, validated, and non-programming-based method for calculating Charlson and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index scores. As the comorbidity calculations can be conducted in Microsoft Excel's simple graphical point-and-click interface, the new method lowers the threshold for calculating these two widely used indices.

Trial registration

retrospectively registered.

SUBMITTER: Prommik P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8742382 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe original Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) encompassed 19 categories of medical conditions that were identifiable in medical records. Subsequent publications provided scoring algorithms based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes. The recent adoption of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes in the United States created a need for a new scoring scheme. In addition, a review of existing claims-based scoring systems suggested 3 areas for improvement: the lack of explicit identification of secondary diabetes, the lack of differentiation between HIV infection and AIDS, and insufficient guidance on scoring hierarchy. In addition, addressing the third need raised the issue of disease severity in renal disease.ObjectivesThis initiative aimed to create an expanded and refined ICD-9 scoring system for CCI, addressing the classification of issues noted above, create a corresponding ICD-10 system, assess the comparability of ICD-9- and ICD-10-based scores, and validate the new scoring scheme.MethodsWe created ICD-9 and ICD-10 code tables for 19 CCI medical conditions. The new scoring scheme was labeled CDMF CCI and was tested using claims-based data for individuals aged ≥65 years who participated in a Humana Medicare Advantage plan during at least 1 of 3 consecutive 12-month periods. Two 12-month periods were during the ICD-9 era and the third 12-month period was during the ICD-10 era. Because many individuals were counted in more than one 12-month period, we described the study population as comprising 3 panels. We used regression models to analyze the association between the CCI score and same-year inpatient admissions and near-term (90-day) mortality. Additional testing was done by comparing the mean CCI score or disease prevalence in the 3 subpopulations of people with HIV/AIDS, renal disease, or diabetes. Finally, we calculated area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUC-ROC) curve values by applying the Deyo system and our ICD-9 and ICD-10 scoring systems.ResultsThe CDMF ICD-9 and ICD-10 scoring scheme yielded comparable scores across the 3 panels, and inpatient admissions and mortality rates consistently increased in each panel as the CCI score increased. Comparisons of the performance of the Deyo system and our proposed CDMF ICD-9 system in the 3 key subpopulations showed that the CDMF ICD-9 system produced a lower CCI score in the presence of HIV infection without AIDS, achieved similar detection ability of diabetes, and allowed good differentiation between mild-to-moderate and severe renal disease. AUC-ROC values were similar between the CDMF ICD-9 coding system and the Deyo system.ConclusionOur results support the implementation of the CDMF CCI scoring instrument to triage individual patients for disease- and care-management programs. In addition, the CDMF scheme allows for a more precise understanding of chronic disease at a population level, thus allowing health systems and plans to design services and benefits to meet multifactorial clinical needs. Preliminary validation sets the stage for further testing using long-term follow-up data and for the adaptation of this coding scheme to a chart review instrument.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices are mortality predictors often used in clinical, administrative, and research applications. The Intermountain Mortality Risk Scores (IMRS) are validated mortality predictors that use all factors from the complete blood count and basic metabolic profile. How IMRS, Charlson, and Elixhauser relate to each other is unknown. METHODS:All inpatient admissions except obstetric patients at Intermountain Healthcare's 21 adult care hospitals from 2010-2014 (N = 197,680) were examined in a observational cohort study. The most recent admission was a patient's index encounter. Follow-up to 2018 used hospital death records, Utah death certificates, and the Social Security death master file. Three Charlson versions, 8 Elixhauser versions, and 3 IMRS formulations were evaluated in Cox regression and the one of each that was most predictive was used in dual risk score mortality analyses (in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year mortality). RESULTS:Indices with the strongest mortality associations and selected for dual score study were the age-adjusted Charlson, the van Walraven version of the acute Elixhauser, and the 1-year IMRS. For in-hospital mortality, Charlson (c = 0.719; HR = 4.75, 95% CI = 4.45, 5.07), Elixhauser (c = 0.783; HR = 5.79, CI = 5.41, 6.19), and IMRS (c = 0.821; HR = 17.95, CI = 15.90, 20.26) were significant predictors (p<0.001) in univariate analyses. Dual score analysis of Charlson (HR = 1.79, CI = 1.66, 1.92) with IMRS (HR = 13.10, CI = 11.53, 14.87) and of Elixhauser (HR = 3.00, CI = 2.80, 3.21) with IMRS (HR = 11.42, CI = 10.09, 12.92) found significance for both scores in each model. Results were similar for 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS:IMRS provided the strongest ability to predict mortality, adding to and attenuating the predictive ability of the Charlson and Elixhauser indices whose mortality associations remained statistically significant. IMRS uses common, standardized, objective laboratory data and should be further evaluated for integration into mortality risk evaluations.

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding how comorbidity measures contribute to patient mortality is essential both to describe patient health status and to adjust for risks and potential confounding. The Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices are well-established for risk adjustment and mortality prediction. Still, a different set of comorbidity weights might improve the prediction of in-hospital mortality. The present study, therefore, aimed to derive a set of new Swiss Elixhauser comorbidity weightings, to validate and compare them against those of the Charlson and Elixhauser-based van Walraven weights in an adult in-patient population-based cohort of general hospitals.MethodsRetrospective analysis was conducted with routine data of 102 Swiss general hospitals (2012-2017) for 6.09 million inpatient cases. To derive the Swiss weightings for the Elixhauser comorbidity index, we randomly halved the inpatient data and validated the results of part 1 alongside the established weighting systems in part 2, to predict in-hospital mortality. Charlson and van Walraven weights were applied to Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices. Derivation and validation of weightings were conducted with generalized additive models adjusted for age, gender and hospital types.ResultsOverall, the Elixhauser indices, c-statistic with Swiss weights (0.867, 95% CI, 0.865-0.868) and van Walraven's weights (0.863, 95% CI, 0.862-0.864) had substantial advantage over Charlson's weights (0.850, 95% CI, 0.849-0.851) and in the derivation and validation groups. The net reclassification improvement of new Swiss weights improved the predictive performance by 1.6% on the Elixhauser-van Walraven and 4.9% on the Charlson weights.ConclusionsAll weightings confirmed previous results with the national dataset. The new Swiss weightings model improved slightly the prediction of in-hospital mortality in Swiss hospitals. The newly derive weights support patient population-based analysis of in-hospital mortality and seek country or specific cohort-based weightings.