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
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.
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
Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data
Quan, H., Sundararajan, V., Halfon, P., Fong, A., Burnand, B., Luthi, J.-C., Saunders, L. D., Beck, C. A., Feasby, T. E., & Ghali, W. A. (2005) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83 · Cited by 10,669
Self-citationAdapting 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
New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality
Sundararajan, V., Henderson, T., Perry, C., Muggivan, A., Quan, H., & Ghali, W. A. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.03.012 · Cited by 2,439
Self-citationUse and Misuse of the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve in Risk Prediction
Cook, N. R. (2007) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.106.672402 · Cited by 2,112
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
Validity of Information on Comorbidity Derived From ICD-9-CCM Administrative Data
Quan, H., Parsons, G. A., & Ghali, W. A. (2002) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-200208000-00007 · Cited by 579
Self-citationRisk Adjustment in Outcome Assessment: the Charlson Comorbidity Index
Sicotte, C., Tilquin, C., & D’Hoore, W. (1993) · Methods of Information in Medicine · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634956 · Cited by 545
Quality of Diagnosis and Procedure Coding in ICD-10 Administrative Data
Henderson, T., Shepheard, J., & Sundararajan, V. (2006) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000228018.48783.34 · Cited by 406
Self-citationMeasuring potentially avoidable hospital readmissions
Halfon, P., Eggli, Y., van Melle, G., Chevalier, J., Wasserfallen, J.-B., & Burnand, B. (2002) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(01)00521-2 · Cited by 245
Self-citation
Cited by
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
Systematic Review of Comorbidity Indices for Administrative Data
Sharabiani, M. T. A., Aylin, P., & Bottle, A. (2012) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e31825f64d0 · Cited by 493
A systematic review identifies valid comorbidity indices derived from administrative health data
Yurkovich, M., Avina-Zubieta, J. A., Thomas, J., Gorenchtein, M., & Lacaille, D. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.010 · Cited by 358
Li, B., Evans, D., Faris, P., Dean, S., & Quan, H. (2008) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-12 · Cited by 342
Self-citationSingh, H., Nugent, Z., Demers, A. A., & Bernstein, C. N. (2010) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1038/ajg.2010.390 · Cited by 261
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.