Cited by 219Chronic Disease Management StrategiesMedical Coding and Health InformationCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes

Charlson scores based on ICD-10 administrative data were valid in assessing comorbidity in patients undergoing urological cancer surgery

Nuttall, Martin, van der Meulen, Jan, Emberton, Mark·2006·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Background and objectives Adjustment for comorbidity is an essential component of any observational study comparing outcomes. We evaluated the validity of the Charlson comorbidity score based on ICD-10 codes in patients undergoing urological cancer surgery within an English administrative database.Study design and setting Patients who underwent radical urological cancer surgery between 1998 and 2002 in the English National Health Service were identified from the Hospital Episode Statistics database (N = 20,138). ICD-9-CM codes defining comorbid diseases according to the Deyo and Dartmouth-Manitoba adaptations of the Charlson comorbidity score were translated into ICD-10 codes.Results Charlson scores derived by the ICD-10 translation of the Deyo and Dartmouth-Manitoba adaptations were identical in 16,623 patients (83%; kappa = .63). For both adaptations, ICD-10 scores increased with age, were higher in patients admitted on an emergency basis, and predicted short-term outcome. Addition of either the ICD-10 Charlson Deyo or Dartmouth-Manitoba score to risk models containing age and sex to predict in-hospital mortality resulted in a better model fit but only in small improvements of the predictive power.Conclusion The ICD-10 translations of the Deyo and Dartmouth-Manitoba adaptations performed similarly in risk models predicting hospital mortality following urological cancer surgery. Adjustment for comorbidity over and above age and sex alone does not seem to provide a large improvement.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.015

Cites

54 of 54 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
Nuttall, M., van der Meulen, J., & Emberton, M.
Affiliations
Royal College of Surgeons of England (GB)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-03
Volume
59
Issue
3
Pages
265-273
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1965010847
Cited by
219
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 12
FWCI
4.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Keywords
Charlson Comorbidity Index, ICD-10, administrative data, comorbidity adjustment, in-hospital mortality prediction, risk adjustment, Hospital Episode Statistics
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Forms and Records Control, Humans, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Research Design, Urologic Neoplasms, Cohort Studies, Comorbidity, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Prevalence, Hospital Mortality, Risk Adjustment, 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