Cross-National Comparative Performance of Three Versions of the ICD-10 Charlson Index
- 1 December 2007
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Medical Care
- Vol. 45 (12), 1210-1215
- https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0b013e3181484347
Abstract
The Charlson comorbidity index has been widely used for risk adjustment in outcome studies using administrative health data. Recently, 3 International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) translations have been published for the Charlson comorbidities. This study was conducted to compare the predictive performance of these versions (the Halfon, Sundararajan, and Quan versions) of the ICD-10 coding algorithms using data from 4 countries. Data from Australia (N = 2000–2001, max 25 diagnosis codes), Canada (N = 2002–2003, max 16 diagnosis codes), Switzerland (N = 1999–2001, unlimited number of diagnosis codes), and Japan (N = 2003, max 11 diagnosis codes) were analyzed. Only the first admission for patients age 18 years and older, with a length of stay of ≥2 days was included. For each algorithm, 2 logistic regression models were fitted with hospital mortality as the outcome and the Charlson individual comorbidities or the Charlson index score as independent variables. The c-statistic (representing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and its 95% probability bootstrap distribution were employed to evaluate model performance. Overall, within each population's data, the distribution of comorbidity level categories was similar across the 3 translations. The Quan version produced slightly higher median c-statistics than the Halfon or Sundararajan versions in all datasets. For example, in Japanese data, the median c-statistics were 0.712 (Quan), 0.709 (Sundararajan), and 0.694 (Halfon) using individual comorbidity coefficients. In general, the probability distributions between the Quan and the Sundararajan versions overlapped, whereas those between the Quan and the Halfon version did not. Our analyses show that all of the ICD-10 versions of the Charlson algorithm performed satisfactorily (c-statistics 0.70–0.86), with the Quan version showing a trend toward outperforming the other versions in all data sets.Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Use and Misuse of the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve in Risk PredictionCirculation, 2007
- Quality of Diagnosis and Procedure Coding in ICD-10 Administrative DataMedical Care, 2006
- Coding Algorithms for Defining Comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 Administrative DataMedical Care, 2005
- New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortalityJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2004
- Should scoring rules be based on odds ratios or regression coefficients?Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2002
- Validity of Information on Comorbidity Derived From ICD-9-CCM Administrative DataMedical Care, 2002
- Measuring potentially avoidable hospital readmissionsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2002
- Medical Care in JapanThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1995
- Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databasesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1992
- A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validationJournal of Chronic Diseases, 1987