The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Comorbidities, complications, and coding bias. Does the number of diagnosis codes matter in predicting in-hospital mortality?
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Incomplete coding of secondary diagnoses may bias assessments of patient risks of poor outcomes using administrative health care databases, most of which allow only five diagnoses. The Medicare program is expanding the number of possible diagnoses from five to nine, aiming to improve coding completeness. We examined the impact of having more diagnosis codes available on assessments of risk of death. DESIGN: We used 1988 computerized hospital discharge abstract data from California, which allow up to 25 diagnoses per discharge, to select a sample of hospitalized patients and assessed the relationship between the presence of 29 specific secondary diagnoses and the risk of in-hospital death. SETTING: Nonfederal acute-care hospitals in California. STUDY POPULATION: All patients at least 65 years of age who were hospitalized for stroke, pneumonia, acute myocardial infarction, or congestive heart failure in California in 1988 (N = 162,790). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Relative risk of death for each specific secondary diagnosis. RESULTS: Many conditions that on a clinical basis would be expected to increase the risk of death, such as adult-onset diabetes mellitus, previous myocardial infarction, angina, and ventricular premature beats, were associated with a lower risk of in-hospital death. CONCLUSIONS: Bias against coding of chronic or comorbid conditions on the computerized discharge abstracts of patients who die best explains these results. Efforts to improve diagnosis coding completeness solely by increasing the number of available coding spaces may not succeed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data.
Elixhauser, A., Steiner, C., Harris, D. R., & Coffey, R. M. (1998) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199801000-00004 · Cited by 9,921
How to measure comorbiditya critical review of available methods
DEGROOT, V, BECKERMAN, H., LANKHORST, G., & BOUTER, L. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00585-1 · Cited by 1,757
A combined comorbidity score predicted mortality in elderly patients better than existing scores
Gagne, J. J., Glynn, R. J., Avorn, J., Levin, R., & Schneeweiss, S. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.004 · Cited by 995
Accuracy of ICD-9-CM Codes for Identifying Cardiovascular and Stroke Risk Factors
Birman-Deych, E., Waterman, A. D., Yan, Y., Nilasena, D. S., Radford, M. J., & Gage, B. F. (2005) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000160417.39497.a9 · Cited by 719
Declining Mortality in Patients with Acute Renal Failure, 1988 to 2002
Waikar, S. S., Curhan, G. C., Wald, R., McCarthy, E. P., & Chertow, G. M. (2006) · Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · doi:10.1681/asn.2005091017 · Cited by 587
Metadata
- Authors
- Iezzoni, L. I.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association
- Published
- 1992-04-22
- Volume
- 267
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 2197-2203
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2150265177
- Cited by
- 447
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 38.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comorbidities, complications, and coding bias. Does the number of diagnosis codes matter in predicting in-hospital mortality? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.267.16.2197
- The paper
- Iezzoni, L. I. (1992). Comorbidities, complications, and coding bias. Does the number of diagnosis codes matter in predicting in-hospital mortality? JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.267.16.2197
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.