The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Can Comorbidity Be Measured By Questionnaire Rather than Medical Record Review?
Abstract
Comorbidity generally is measured by medical record abstraction, which is expensive and often impractical. The aim of this study was to assess the reproducibility and validity of a comorbidity questionnaire. The authors developed a brief comorbidity questionnaire that included items corresponding to each element of the medical record-based Charlson index. The questionnaire was administered to 170 inpatients. Charlson scores were abstracted from these patients' medical records. We assessed test-retest reliability of the questionnaire and the Charlson index, the correlation between the questionnaire and the Charlson index, and correlations between each comorbidity measure and indicators of health resource utilization including medication use, hospitalizations in the past year, and hospital charges. Test-retest reliability, assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient, was 0.91 for the questionnaire and 0.92 for the chart-based Charlson index. The Spearman correlation between these two measures was 0.63. The correlation between comorbidity measures was weaker in less educated patients. Correlations with indicators of resource utilization were similar for the two comorbidity instruments. The authors found that a questionnaire version of the Charlson index is reproducible, valid, and offers practical advantages over medical record-based assessments.
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
Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases
DEYO, R. (1992) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8 · Cited by 10,452
High agreement but low Kappa: I. the problems of two paradoxes
Feinstein, A. R., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1990) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-l · Cited by 3,034
COLDITZ, G. A., MARTIN, P., STAMPFER, M. J., WILLETT, W. C., SAMPSON, L., ROSNER, B., HENNEKENS, C. H., & SPEIZER, F. E. (1986) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114319 · Cited by 992
Cited by
Sorror, M. L., Maris, M. B., Storb, R., Baron, F., Sandmaier, B. M., Maloney, D. G., & Storer, B. (2005) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood-2005-05-2004 · Cited by 2,969
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
Charlson Comorbidity Index: A Critical Review of Clinimetric Properties
Charlson, M. E., Carrozzino, D., Guidi, J., & Patierno, C. (2022) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000521288 · Cited by 1,686
Development and Validation of a Prognostic Index for 4-Year Mortality in Older Adults
Lee, S. J. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.7.801 · Cited by 809
Metadata
- Authors
- KATZ, J. N., CHANG, L. C., SANGHA, O., FOSSEL, A. H., & BATES, D. W.
- Venue
- Medical Care
- Published
- 1996-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 73-84
- ISSN
- 0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2002736415
- Cited by
- 1,035
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.67
- 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: Can Comorbidity Be Measured By Questionnaire Rather than Medical Record Review? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00005650-199601000-00006
- The paper
- KATZ, J. N., CHANG, L. C., SANGHA, O., FOSSEL, A. H., & BATES, D. W. (1996). Can Comorbidity Be Measured By Questionnaire Rather than Medical Record Review? Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199601000-00006
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.
