Cited by 2,439Medical Coding and Health InformationChronic Disease Management StrategiesCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes

New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality

Sundararajan, Vijaya, Henderson, Toni, Perry, Catherine, Muggivan, Amanda, Quan, Hude, Ghali, William A.·2004·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Background and objective The ICD-9-CM adaptation of the Charlson comorbidity score has been a valuable resource for health services researchers. With the transition into ICD-10 coding worldwide, an ICD-10 version of the Deyo adaptation was developed and validated using population-based hospital data from Victoria, Australia. Methods The algorithm was translated from ICD-9-CM into ICD-10-AM (Australian modification) in a multistep process. After a mapping algorithm was used to develop an initial translation, these codes were manually examined by the coding experts and a general physician for face validity. Because the ICD-10 system is country specific, our goal was to keep many of the translated code at the three-digit level for generalizability of the new index. Results There appears to be little difference in the distribution of the Charlson Index score between the two versions. A strong association between increasing index scores and mortality exists: the area under the ROC curve is 0.865 for the last year using the ICD-9-CM version and remains high, at 0.855, for the ICD-10 version. Conclusion This work represents the first rigorous adaptation of the Charlson comorbidity index for use with ICD-10 data. In comparison with a well-established ICD-9-CM coding algorithm, it yields closely similar prevalence and prognosis information by comorbidity category.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.03.012

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sundararajan, V., Henderson, T., Perry, C., Muggivan, A., Quan, H., & Ghali, W. A.
Affiliations
  • Government of Victoria (AU)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
Corresponding author
Sundararajan, Vijaya
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-12
Volume
57
Issue
12
Pages
1288-1294
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2165037395
Cited by
2,439
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 107 · 2025: 194 · 2024: 220 · 2023: 255 · 2022: 260 · 2021: 274 · 2020: 198 · 2019: 129 · 2018: 99 · 2017: 116 · 2016: 96 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 88 · 2013: 62 · 2012: 57
FWCI
25.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Keywords
Charlson Comorbidity Index, ICD-10, ICD-9-CM, comorbidity measurement, in-hospital mortality, mortality prediction, hospital data
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Humans, Middle Aged, ROC Curve, Victoria, Comorbidity, Hospital Mortality, International Classification of Diseases

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