Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 579

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validity of Information on Comorbidity Derived From ICD-9-CCM Administrative Data

Quan, Hude, Parsons, Gerry A., Ghali, William A.·2002·Medical Care

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The comorbidity variables that constitute the Charlson index are widely used in health care research using administrative data. However, little is known about the validity of administrative data in these comorbidities. The agreement between administrative hospital discharge data and chart data for the recording of information on comorbidity was evaluated. The predictive ability of comorbidity information in the two data sets for predicting in-hospital mortality was also compared. METHODS: One thousand two hundred administrative hospital discharge records were randomly selected in the region of Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1996 and used a published coding algorithm to define the 17 comorbidities that constitute the Charlson index. Corresponding patient charts for the selected records were reviewed as the "criterion standard" against which validity of the administrative data were judged. RESULTS: Compared with the chart data, administrative data had a lower prevalence in 10 comorbidities, a higher prevalence in 3 and a similar prevalence in 4. The kappa values ranged from a high of 0.87 to a low of 0.34; agreement was therefore near perfect for one variable, substantial for six, moderate for nine, and only fair for one variable. For the Charlson index score ranging from 0 to 5 to 6 or higher, agreement was moderate to substantial (kappa = 0.56, weighted kappa = 0.71). When 16 Charlson comorbidities from administrative data were used to predict in-hospital mortality, 10 comorbidities and the index scores defined using administrative data yielded odds ratios that were similar to those derived from chart data. The remaining six comorbidities yielded odds ratios that were quite different from those derived from chart data. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative data generally agree with patient chart data for recording of comorbidities although comorbidities tend to be under-reported in administrative data. The ability to predict in-hospital mortality is less reliable for some of the individual comorbidities than it is for the summarized Charlson index scores in administrative data.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00005650-200208000-00007

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 579

Metadata

Authors
Quan, H., Parsons, G. A., & Ghali, W. A.
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2002-08
Volume
40
Issue
8
Pages
675-685
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2050034771
Cited by
579
References
3
FWCI
34.78
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: Validity of Information on Comorbidity Derived From ICD-9-CCM Administrative Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00005650-200208000-00007
The paper
Quan, H., Parsons, G. A., & Ghali, W. A. (2002). Validity of Information on Comorbidity Derived From ICD-9-CCM Administrative Data. Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200208000-00007

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.