The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of the Elixhauser and Charlson/Deyo Methods of Comorbidity Measurement in Administrative Data
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comorbidity risk adjustment methods have been used widely with administrative data, and the Charlson/Deyo method is perhaps the most commonly used in the literature. However, a new method defined by Elixhauser et al. has been introduced recently and could be superior, although it has not been validated widely. OBJECTIVES: We compared the Charlson/Deyo and Elixhauser methods using Canadian administrative data on patients with myocardial infarction (MI). RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a historical cohort study. SUBJECTS: We used administrative hospital discharge data from a large Canadian city for all cases with acute MI coded as most responsible diagnosis between January 1, 1995, and March 31, 2001. MEASURES: We used each of the 2 methods to define comorbidity variables based on the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes present in each case record. We then compared 2 models predicting in-hospital mortality based on presence or absence of the variables defined by each of the methods. Frequency tables were produced and c-statistics and changes in -2 log likelihood (-2LogL) were calculated. We also visually assessed model performance by plotting observed and expected percentages of death for increasing risk categories defined by the 2 models. RESULTS: The Elixhauser model outperformed the Charlson/Deyo model in predicting mortality, with higher c-statistic values (0.793 vs. 0.704). Superior performance of the Elixhauser method is confirmed when plotting the expected and observed risks of death across groupings of increasing risk, in which the Elixhauser method yields a wider range of predicted and observed probabilities of death across groupings (2.5%-33%) than does the Charlson/Deyo method (5%-25%). CONCLUSIONS: The Elixhauser comorbidity measurement method performs better than the widely used Charlson/Deyo method in the Canadian acute MI cases studied.
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
Charlson, M. E., Pompei, P., Ales, K. L., & MacKenzie, C. R. (1987) · Journal of Chronic Diseases · doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 · Cited by 49,742
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
Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data.
Elixhauser, A., Steiner, C., Harris, D. R., & Coffey, R. M. (1998) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199801000-00004 · Cited by 9,921
Romano, P. S., Roos, L. L., & Jollis, J. G. (1993) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90103-8 · Cited by 1,717
Practical considerations on the use of the charlson comorbidity index with administrative data bases
D'Hoore, W., Bouckaert, A., & Tilquin, C. (1996) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00271-5 · Cited by 893
Stukenborg, G. J., Wagner, D. P., & Connors, A. F. (2001) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-200107000-00009 · Cited by 239
Assessing accuracy of diagnosis-type indicators for flagging complications in administrative data
Quan, H., Parsons, G. A., & Ghali, W. A. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.01.002 · Cited by 102
Self-citationRisk adjustment using administrative data
Ghali, W. A., Quan, H., & Brant, R. (2001) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016008519.x · Cited by 46
Self-citation
Cited by
van Walraven, C., Austin, P. C., Jennings, A., Quan, H., & Forster, A. J. (2009) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e31819432e5 · Cited by 2,200
Self-citationCharlson 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
Quan, H., Li, B., Duncan Saunders, L., Parsons, G. A., Nilsson, C. I., Alibhai, A., Ghali, W. A., & for the IMECCHI Investigators (2008) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00822.x · Cited by 892
Self-citationDevelopment 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
Volpp, K. G., Rosen, A. K., Rosenbaum, P. R., Romano, P. S., Even-Shoshan, O., Wang, Y., Bellini, L., Behringer, T., & Silber, J. H. (2007) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.298.9.975 · Cited by 325
Metadata
- Authors
- Southern, D. A., Quan, H., & Ghali, W. A.
- Venue
- Medical Care
- Published
- 2004-04
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 355-360
- ISSN
- 0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1974173658
- Cited by
- 573
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 11.03
- 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: Comparison of the Elixhauser and Charlson/Deyo Methods of Comorbidity Measurement in Administrative Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.mlr.0000118861.56848.ee
- The paper
- Southern, D. A., Quan, H., & Ghali, W. A. (2004). Comparison of the Elixhauser and Charlson/Deyo Methods of Comorbidity Measurement in Administrative Data. Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000118861.56848.ee
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.