The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Examining variation in the measurement of multimorbidity in research: a systematic review of 566 studies
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: A systematic understanding of how multimorbidity has been constructed and measured is unavailable. This review aimed to examine the definition and measurement of multimorbidity in peer-reviewed studies internationally. METHODS: We systematically reviewed studies on multimorbidity, via a search of nine bibliographic databases (Ovid [PsycINFO, Embase, Global Health, and MEDLINE], Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global), from inception to Jan 21, 2020. Reference lists and tracked citations of retrieved articles were hand-searched. Eligible studies were full-text articles measuring multimorbidity for any purpose in community, primary care, care home, or hospital populations receiving a non-specialist service. Abstracts, qualitative research, and case series were excluded. Two reviewers independently reviewed the retrieved studies with conflicts resolved by discussion or a third reviewer, and a single researcher extracted data from published papers. To assess our objectives of how multimorbidity has been measured and examine variation in the chronic conditions included (in terms of number and type), we used descriptive analysis (frequencies, cross-tabulation, and negative binomial regression) to summarise the characteristics of multimorbidity studies and measures (study setting, source of morbidity data, study population, primary study purpose, and multimorbidity measure type). This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD420201724090. FINDINGS: 566 studies were included in our review, of which 206 (36·4%) did not report a reference definition for multimorbidity and 73 (12·9%) did not report the conditions their measure included. The number of conditions included in measures ranged from two to 285 (median 17 [IQR 11-23). 452 (79·9%) studies reported types of condition within a single multimorbidity measure; most included at least one cardiovascular condition (441 [97·6%] of 452 studies), metabolic and endocrine condition (440 [97·3%]), respiratory condition (422 [93·4%]), musculoskeletal condition (396 [87·6%]), or mental health condition (355 [78·5%]) in their measure of multimorbidity. Chronic infections (123 [27·2%]), haematological conditions (110 [24·3%]), ear, nose, and throat conditions (107 [23·7%]), skin conditions (70 [15·5%]), oral conditions (19 [4·2%]), and congenital conditions (14 [3·1%]) were uncommonly included. Only eight individual conditions were included by more than half of studies in the multimorbidity measure used (diabetes, stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, coronary heart disease, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure), with individual mental health conditions under-represented. Of the 566 studies, 419 were rated to be of moderate risk of bias, 107 of high risk of bias, and 40 of low risk of bias according to the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool. INTERPRETATION: Measurement of multimorbidity is poorly reported and highly variable. Consistent reporting of measure definitions should be required by journals, and consensus studies are needed to define core and study-dependent conditions to include in measures of multimorbidity. FUNDING: Health Data Research UK.
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
Cites
Vos, T., Lim, S. S., Abbafati, C., Abbas, K. M., Abbasi, M., Abbasifard, M., Abbasi-Kangevari, M., Abbastabar, H., Abd-Allah, F., Abdelalim, A., et al. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30925-9 · Cited by 19,358
Self-citationMultiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice
White, I. R., Royston, P., & Wood, A. M. (2011) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4067 · Cited by 9,792
Munn, Z., Moola, S., Lisy, K., Riitano, D., & Tufanaru, C. (2015) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000054 · Cited by 3,131
Miller, M. D., Paradis, C. F., Houck, P. R., Mazumdar, S., Stack, J. A., Rifai, A. H., Mulsant, B., & Reynolds, C. F. (1992) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/0165-1781(92)90005-n · Cited by 1,990
Gardner, W. P., Mulvey, E. P., & Shaw, E. C. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.118.3.392 · Cited by 1,836
Armijo‐Olivo, S., Stiles, C. R., Hagen, N. A., Biondo, P. D., & Cummings, G. G. (2012) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x · Cited by 1,539
A Systematic Review of Prevalence Studies on Multimorbidity: Toward a More Uniform Methodology
Fortin, M., Stewart, M., Poitras, M.-E., Almirall, J., & Maddocks, H. (2012) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.1337 · Cited by 1,135
Violan, C., Foguet-Boreu, Q., Flores-Mateo, G., Salisbury, C., Blom, J., Freitag, M., Glynn, L., Muth, C., & Valderas, J. M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102149 · Cited by 1,125
A chronic disease score from automated pharmacy data
Von Korff, M., Wagner, E. H., & Saunders, K. (1992) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90016-g · Cited by 961
Defining and measuring multimorbidity: a systematic review of systematic reviews
Johnston, M. C., Crilly, M., Black, C., Prescott, G. J., & Mercer, S. W. (2019) · European Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/eurpub/cky098 · Cited by 847
Self-citation
Cited by
Skou, S. T., Mair, F. S., Fortin, M., Guthrie, B., Nunes, B. P., Miranda, J. J., Boyd, C. M., Pati, S., Mtenga, S., & Smith, S. M. (2022) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-022-00376-4 · Cited by 1,362
Self-citationSabia, S., Dugravot, A., Léger, D., Ben Hassen, C., Kivimaki, M., & Singh-Manoux, A. (2022) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004109 · Cited by 106
Arias de la Torre, J., Ronaldson, A., Alonso, J., Dregan, A., Mudway, I., Valderas, J. M., Vineis, P., & Bakolis, I. (2023) · European Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s10654-022-00955-5 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Ho, I. S.-S., Azcoaga-Lorenzo, A., Akbari, A., Black, C., Davies, J., Hodgins, P., Khunti, K., Kadam, U., Lyons, R. A., McCowan, C., Mercer, S., Nirantharakumar, K., & Guthrie, B.
- Venue
- The Lancet Public Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-08
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e587-e597
- ISSN
- 2468-2667 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3166684748
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 41
- FWCI
- 10.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Examining variation in the measurement of multimorbidity in research: a systematic review of 566 studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s2468-2667(21)00107-9
- The paper
- Ho, I. S.-S., Azcoaga-Lorenzo, A., Akbari, A., Black, C., Davies, J., Hodgins, P., Khunti, K., Kadam, U., Lyons, R. A., McCowan, C., Mercer, S., Nirantharakumar, K., & Guthrie, B. (2021). Examining variation in the measurement of multimorbidity in research: a systematic review of 566 studies. The Lancet Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-2667(21)00107-9
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.