Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 260

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cross-National Comparative Performance of Three Versions of the ICD-10 Charlson Index

Sundararajan, Vijaya, Quan, Hude, Halfon, Patricia, Fushimi, Kiyohide, Luthi, Jean-Christophe, Burnand, Bernard, Ghali, William A.·2007·Medical Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Charlson comorbidity index has been widely used for risk adjustment in outcome studies using administrative health data. Recently, 3 International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) translations have been published for the Charlson comorbidities. This study was conducted to compare the predictive performance of these versions (the Halfon, Sundararajan, and Quan versions) of the ICD-10 coding algorithms using data from 4 countries. METHODS: Data from Australia (N = 2000-2001, max 25 diagnosis codes), Canada (N = 2002-2003, max 16 diagnosis codes), Switzerland (N = 1999-2001, unlimited number of diagnosis codes), and Japan (N = 2003, max 11 diagnosis codes) were analyzed. Only the first admission for patients age 18 years and older, with a length of stay of >/=2 days was included. For each algorithm, 2 logistic regression models were fitted with hospital mortality as the outcome and the Charlson individual comorbidities or the Charlson index score as independent variables. The c-statistic (representing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and its 95% probability bootstrap distribution were employed to evaluate model performance. RESULTS: Overall, within each population's data, the distribution of comorbidity level categories was similar across the 3 translations. The Quan version produced slightly higher median c-statistics than the Halfon or Sundararajan versions in all datasets. For example, in Japanese data, the median c-statistics were 0.712 (Quan), 0.709 (Sundararajan), and 0.694 (Halfon) using individual comorbidity coefficients. In general, the probability distributions between the Quan and the Sundararajan versions overlapped, whereas those between the Quan and the Halfon version did not. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses show that all of the ICD-10 versions of the Charlson algorithm performed satisfactorily (c-statistics 0.70-0.86), with the Quan version showing a trend toward outperforming the other versions in all data sets.

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/mlr.0b013e3181484347

Cites

12 of 12 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 12 references

Cited by

See all 260

Metadata

Authors
Sundararajan, V., Quan, H., Halfon, P., Fushimi, K., Luthi, J.-C., Burnand, B., & Ghali, W. A.
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2007-12
Volume
45
Issue
12
Pages
1210-1215
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2044184365
Cited by
260
References
12
FWCI
16.71
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: Cross-National Comparative Performance of Three Versions of the ICD-10 Charlson Index. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/mlr.0b013e3181484347
The paper
Sundararajan, V., Quan, H., Halfon, P., Fushimi, K., Luthi, J.-C., Burnand, B., & Ghali, W. A. (2007). Cross-National Comparative Performance of Three Versions of the ICD-10 Charlson Index. Medical Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/mlr.0b013e3181484347

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.