Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 581

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Manual of Guidelines to Score the Modified Cumulative Illness Rating Scale and Its Validation in Acute Hospitalized Elderly Patients

Salvi, Fabio, Miller, Mark D., Grilli, Annalisa, Giorgi, Raffaella, Towers, Adele L., Morichi, Valeria, Spazzafumo, Liana, Mancinelli, Lucia, Espinosa, Emma, Rappelli, Alessandro, Dessì‐Fulgheri, Paolo·2008·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To update previous guidelines to score the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) and test their usefulness in hospitalized elderly patients. DESIGN: The CIRS was scored retrospectively in a cohort of elderly patients followed for 18 months. SETTING: An acute internal medicine ward in an academic tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred eighty‐seven patients aged 65 and older. MEASUREMENTS: The CIRS was retrospectively scored for the enrolled patients. Intrarater and interrater reliability were calculated. Two illness severity indices (total score (TSC) and severity (SV)) and one comorbidity index (CM) were obtained. Clinical features and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) variables were also used. All patients underwent an 18‐month follow‐up for mortality and rehospitalization. RESULTS: Intrarater and interrater reliability of the CIRS scored following the guidelines was good (intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.83 and 0.81, respectively). The TSC, SV, and CM correlated with clinical features (laboratory values, medication usage, and length of in‐hospital stay) and CGA variables (cognitive impairment, depression and disability). All three indices were able to predict 18‐month mortality and rehospitalization rates. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed the validity of the CIRS as an indicator of health status and demonstrated its ability to predict 18‐month mortality and rehospitalization in hospitalized elderly patients. The availability of detailed guidelines for scoring the CIRS can improve its usefulness and facilitate more‐widespread use for research and clinical aims.

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 · 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01935.x

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 581

Metadata

Authors
Salvi, F., Miller, M. D., Grilli, A., Giorgi, R., Towers, A. L., Morichi, V., Spazzafumo, L., Mancinelli, L., Espinosa, E., Rappelli, A., & Dessì‐Fulgheri, P.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-10
Volume
56
Issue
10
Pages
1926-1931
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W2122443513
Cited by
581
References
5
FWCI
4.55
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: A Manual of Guidelines to Score the Modified Cumulative Illness Rating Scale and Its Validation in Acute Hospitalized Elderly Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01935.x
The paper
Salvi, F., Miller, M. D., Grilli, A., Giorgi, R., Towers, A. L., Morichi, V., Spazzafumo, L., Mancinelli, L., Espinosa, E., Rappelli, A., & Dessì‐Fulgheri, P. (2008). A Manual of Guidelines to Score the Modified Cumulative Illness Rating Scale and Its Validation in Acute Hospitalized Elderly Patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01935.x

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.