The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 8 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: There are few valid data that describe the extent of multimorbidity in primary care patients. The purpose of this study was to estimate its prevalence in family practice patients by counting the number of chronic medical conditions and using a measure that considers the severity of these conditions, the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS). METHODS: The study was carried out in the Saguenay region (Québec, Canada) in 2003. The participation of adult patients from 21 family physicians was solicited during consecutive consultation periods. A research nurse reviewed medical records and extracted the data regarding chronic illnesses. For each chronic condition, a severity rating was determined in accordance with the CIRS scoring guidelines. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 320 men and 660 women. Overall, 9 of 10 patients had more than 1 chronic condition. The prevalence of having 2 or more medical conditions in the 18- to 44-year, 45- to 64-year, and 65-year and older age-groups was, respectively, 68%, 95%, and 99% among women and 72%, 89%, and 97% among men. The mean number of conditions and mean CIRS score also increased significantly with age. CONCLUSIONS: Whether measured by simply counting the number of conditions or using the CIRS, the prevalence of multimorbidity is quite high and increases significantly with age in both men and women. Patients with multimorbidity seen in family practice represent the rule rather than the exception.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In a 2003 family practice sample in Quebec, multimorbidity was highly prevalent: 9 of 10 adults had more than 1 chronic condition, and prevalence increased with age. Whether measured by condition count or CIRS severity, multimorbidity was the rule rather than the exception.
Key findings
- Among 980 adult patients (320 men, 660 women), 9 of 10 had more than 1 chronic condition, and approximately 50% had 5 or more.
- Prevalence of 2 or more chronic conditions by age and sex was: women 68% (18–44 years), 95% (45–64 years), and 99% (65+ years); men 72%, 89%, and 97%, respectively.
- Mean CIRS scores increased significantly with age in both men and women (P < .001), rising from 6.3 to 13.1 in men and from 5.1 to 12.9 in women across the three age groups.
- The most common diagnoses were hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and rheumatologic diseases; the 3 most common diagnoses did not differ in frequency between men and women.
Methods
- Two-level survey in the Saguenay region of Quebec, Canada, in 2003. Of 119 eligible family physicians contacted, 27 volunteered and 21 participated after 6 dropped out; adult patients were recruited during consecutive consultation periods.
- Of 1,085 patients contacted, 980 (90.3%) agreed to participate. Research nurses reviewed medical records, extracted chronic diagnoses using the WHO definition of chronic conditions, and assigned severity scores using the CIRS-G; inter-rater reliability was ICC 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84–0.95).
- Analyses used SPSS version 8 with significance at 0.05; prevalence was reported by age and sex, means and medians were calculated for number of conditions and CIRS scores, CIRS means were compared with Kruskal-Wallis tests, proportions with chi-square tests, and 95% CIs were calculated. Clustering by physician was not accounted for because the intraclass correlation coefficient was very low (0.03).
Limitations
- The paper states that the data are only estimates of actual prevalence in the population consulting family physicians; a random sample of each physician’s patients would have been required for more precise measurement. The sample was probably overrepresented by patients who see their physicians often because of multiple conditions, volunteer practices may have introduced unknown biases, and duration of the doctor-patient relationship was not recorded or controlled.
- The paper also states that generalizability may be reduced by the limited number of participating physicians, a female-to-male ratio exceeding that of the general population, possible recruitment bias, and exclusion criteria (pregnancy, illiteracy, or lack of decision-making capacity). Participating and nonparticipating physicians seemed comparable, but few characteristics were compared. Socioeconomic status was not assessed.
- Evident from the text: the profile of patients who refused participation could not be determined, so refusal bias cannot be quantified.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
18 Own result · 11 Own interpretation · 9 Own method · 6 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“approximately 50% had 5 or more.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > RESULTS
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A sex difference was found only in the number of conditions in the intermediate age-group.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, 9 of 10 patients had more than 1 chronic condition.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Nine of 10 had more than 1 chronic condition”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Abstract
plainn = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the proportion of patients with a high CIRS score rises with age in both men (P <.001) and women (P <.001).”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nearly 50% of the patients between 45 and 64 years of age had 5 or more chronic conditions.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean number of conditions and mean CIRS score also increased signifi cantly with age.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Both of these variables increase with age in men (P <.001) and women (P <.001).”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The prevalence of having 2 or more medical conditions in the 18-to 44-year, 45-to 64-year, and 65-year and older age-groups was, respectively, 68%, 95%, and 99% among women and 72%, 89%, and 97% among men.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Abstract
plainn = 320- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mean number of conditions and mean CIRS score also increased signifi cantly with age.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Both of these variables increase with age in men (P <.001) and women (P <.001).”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The prevalence of having 2 or more medical conditions in the 18-to 44-year, 45-to 64-year, and 65-year and older age-groups was, respectively, 68%, 95%, and 99% among women and 72%, 89%, and 97% among men.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Abstract
plainn = 660- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The prevalence of having 2 or more medical conditions in the 18-to 44-year, 45-to 64-year, and 65-year and older age-groups was, respectively, 68%, 95%, and 99% among women and 72%, 89%, and 97% among men.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Abstract
plainn = 320- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
- It may state two separate claims as one. 9
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sample consisted of 320 men and 660 women.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Of these, 980 (90.3%) agreed to participate: 320 men and 660 women.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Abstract
plainn = 320- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the most common diagnoses were hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and rheumatologic diseases.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 3 most common diagnoses did not differ in frequency between men and women.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That the practices were volunteer may also have introduced unknown biases.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Limitations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whether measured by simply counting the number of conditions or using the CIRS, the prevalence of multimorbidity is quite high and increases signifi cantly with age in both men and women.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Abstract
plaindirectn = 320- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even so, the consequences of excluding the small minority of patients who were pregnant, illiterate, or lacked decision-making capacity should have been negligible.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Limitations
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the duration of doctorpatient relationship could not be controlled for because it was not recorded in this study.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As there is no cutoff score above which one can conclude that multimorbidity is present, various cutoff points were used in this study.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Scoring and Validation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such a high prevalence of multiple chronic conditions calls into question the very organization of our health services.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of this study offer additional support to the current trend in family medicine residency programs to concentrate on patients with multimorbidity.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“In terms of specialized care, the Saguenay region is similar to the Canadian average, with 9.0 medical specialists per 10,000 people.15 This fi gure represents only 60% of its estimated staffi ng needs.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Study Region
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A score 10 or higher seems adequate for discriminating between younger and older patients”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > DISCUSSION
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other factors that may reduce the generalizability of our results include the limited number of participating physicians, a female-to-male ratio exceeding that of the general population, and possible recruitment bias.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Limitations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Information about chronic medical conditions is more likely to be found in medical records than in other data sources, such as administrative data or surveys; therefore, a review of medical records seems to be a better way of estimating the prevalence of multimorbidity and may produce higher estimates.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another factor that could help explain the high prevalence of multimorbidity observed here is the relative lack of medical specialists in the Saguenay region.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the CIRS does not have a cutoff score to determine multimorbidity, the cutoff scores of 5 and 10 used in this study indicate disease in at least 2 or 3 systems and 4 or 5 systems, respectively.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > DISCUSSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The socioeconomic status (SES) of residents is comparable to that of those in the rest of Canada, except for a higher unemployment rate (12% vs 8% in 2001).”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Study Region
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The very low intraclass correlation coeffi cient (0.03) justifi es the analysis of morbidity at the patient level only.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Statistical Analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The ratio of general practitioners to patients (8.7 per 10,000) is a little less than the average 9.5 for Canada.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Study Region
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interventions that suit patients with a single disease may not be appropriate for patients with many comorbid conditions.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The wide extent of multimorbidity also strongly supports the development of innovative interventions focused on collaborative practices to better share the burden.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > DISCUSSION
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the ratio of medical specialists in the Saguenay region (9 per 10,000 people) is similar to the Canadian average 14 and midway between that of large urban centers and rural regions.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The CIRS has undergone several validation studies.11,18,19”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Scoring and Validation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11]
- Not checked yetcites [18]
- Not checked yetcites [19]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Patients who refused to participate did not differ systematically from participants in a way that would affect prevalence estimates.
“The profi le of the patients who refused to participate could not be determined.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Medical records accurately and completely reflect patients' chronic conditions.
“A research nurse reviewed medical records and extracted the data regarding chronic illnesses.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In the UK, for example, recent estimates suggest that one in six patients have more than one chronic condition, and these patients account for approximately one-third of all general practice consultations.13”
From Artificial intelligence: opportunities and implications for the health workforce (2020) · cites this paper as [13]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > DISCUSSION
“Although the CIRS does not have a cutoff score to determine multimorbidity, the cutoff scores of 5 and 10 used in this study indicate disease in at least 2 or 3 systems and 4 or 5 systems, respectively.”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Scoring and Validation
“The CIRS uses a scoring system that includes 14 anatomical domains; a scale ranging from 0 (no condition in this domain) to 4 (extremely serious condition) is used to determine a severity score for each domain.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Physician Eligibility and Characteristics
“18-14 y: 2.8 45-64 y: 4.6 65+ y: 6.5”
§ Prevalence of Multimorbidity Among Adults Seen in Family Practice > Physician Eligibility and Characteristics
“18-44 y: 69.3 45-64 y: 92.8 65+ y: 98.7”
Citations
Cites
Improving Primary Care for Patients With Chronic Illness
Bodenheimer, T. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.14.1775 · Cited by 2,961 · cited 2×
“5 or more 19 (10-31) 18 (13-25) 42 (34-50) 51 (46-57) 74 (65-81) 77 (71-83)”
Improving Primary Care for Patients With Chronic Illness: The Chronic Care Model, Part 2
Bodenheimer, T., Wagner, E. H., & Grumbach, K. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.15.1909 · Cited by 2,413
CUMULATIVE ILLNESS RATING SCALE
Linn, B. S., Linn, M. W., & Gurel, L. (1968) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1968.tb02103.x · Cited by 2,332 · cited 2×
“5 or more 19 (10-31) 18 (13-25) 42 (34-50) 51 (46-57) 74 (65-81) 77 (71-83)”
Prevalence, Expenditures, and Complications of Multiple Chronic Conditions in the Elderly
Wolff, J. L., Starfield, B. H., & Anderson, G. F. (2002) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.162.20.2269 · Cited by 2,237
Miller, M. D., Paradis, C. F., Houck, P. R., Mazumdar, S., Stack, J. A., Rifai, A. H., Mulsant, B., & Reynolds, C. F. (1992) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/0165-1781(92)90005-n · Cited by 1,990 · cited 2×
“5 or more 19 (10-31) 18 (13-25) 42 (34-50) 51 (46-57) 74 (65-81) 77 (71-83)”
How to measure comorbiditya critical review of available methods
DEGROOT, V, BECKERMAN, H., LANKHORST, G., & BOUTER, L. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00585-1 · Cited by 1,757
van den Akker, M., Buntinx, F., Metsemakers, J. F. M., Roos, S., & Knottnerus, J. A. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00306-5 · Cited by 1,022
Persons With Chronic Conditions
Hoffman, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540180029029 · Cited by 1,007
Comorbidity or multimorbidity: what's in a name? A review of literature
van den Akker, M., Buntinx, F., & Knottnerus, J. A. (1996) · European Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3109/13814789609162146 · Cited by 857
Descriptions of Barriers to Self-Care by Persons with Comorbid Chronic Diseases
Bayliss, E. A. (2003) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.4 · Cited by 537 · cited 3×
“5 or more 19 (10-31) 18 (13-25) 42 (34-50) 51 (46-57) 74 (65-81) 77 (71-83)”
A Survey of Leading Chronic Disease Management Programs: Are They Consistent with the Literature?
Wagner, E. H., Davis, C., Schaefer, J. K., Korff, M. V., & Austin, B. T. (2002) · Journal of Nursing Care Quality · doi:10.1097/00001786-200201000-00008 · Cited by 377 · cited 2×
“5 or more 19 (10-31) 18 (13-25) 42 (34-50) 51 (46-57) 74 (65-81) 77 (71-83)”
Computerized health information in The Netherlands: a registration network of family practices.
Metsemakers, J. F. M., Höppener, P., Knottnerus, J. A., Kocken, R. J. J., & Limonard, C. (1992) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 272
Assessing the impact of comorbidity in the older population
Guralnik, J. M. (1996) · Annals of Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s1047-2797(96)00060-9 · Cited by 224
Cumulative Illness Rating Scale was a reliable and valid index in a family practice context
Hudon, C., Fortin, M., & Vanasse, A. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.017 · Cited by 219 · cited 2×
“5 or more 19 (10-31) 18 (13-25) 42 (34-50) 51 (46-57) 74 (65-81) 77 (71-83)”
Self-citationMultimorbidity is common to family practice: is it commonly researched?
Fortin, M., Lapointe, L., Hudon, C., & Vanasse, A. (2005) · PubMed Central · Cited by 211
Self-citationA survey of leading chronic disease management programs: are they consistent with the literature?
Wagner, E. H., Davis, C., Schaefer, J., Korff, M. V., & Austin, B. (1999) · PubMed · Cited by 207
How to measure comorbidity: a critical review of available methods
de Groot, V., Beckerman, H., Lankhorst, G. J., & Bouter, L. M. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.09.002 · Cited by 181
Persons with chronic conditions. Their prevalence and costs
Hoffman, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.276.18.1473 · Cited by 180
Fuchs, Z., Blumstein, T., Novikov, I., Walter‐Ginzburg, A., Lyanders, M., Gindin, J., Habot, B., & Modan, B. (1998) · The Journals of Gerontology Series A · doi:10.1093/gerona/53a.6.m447 · Cited by 108
[Comorbidity indexes: review of the literature and application to studies of elderly population].
Harboun, M., & Ankri, J. (2001) · PubMed · Cited by 85
Indices de comorbidité : revue de la littérature et application aux études des populations "âgées".
Harboun, & Ankri (2001) · Revue d Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique · Cited by 13
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Fortin M, Lapointe L, Hudon C, Vanasse A. Multimorbidity in medical literature: Is it commonly researched? Can Fam Physician. 2005;51:244-245.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barnett, K., Mercer, S. W., Norbury, M., Watt, G., Wyke, S., & Guthrie, B. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60240-2 · Cited by 6,972
Aging with multimorbidity: A systematic review of the literature
Marengoni, A., Angleman, S., Melis, R., Mangialasche, F., Karp, A., Garmen, A., Meinow, B., & Fratiglioni, L. (2011) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2011.03.003 · Cited by 3,092
“Fortin et al. (2005) Canada residential N = 980 (18+ years) General practitioner records Multimorbidity defined as 2+ co-existing chronic diseases 98% in 65+ years”
BackgroundSkou, S. T., Mair, F. S., Fortin, M., Guthrie, B., Nunes, B. P., Miranda, J. J., Boyd, C. M., Pati, S., Mtenga, S., & Smith, S. M. (2022) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-022-00376-4 · Cited by 1,499
Self-citationBig Data In Health Care: Using Analytics To Identify And Manage High-Risk And High-Cost Patients
Bates, D. W., Saria, S., Ohno-Machado, L., Shah, A., & Escobar, G. (2014) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0041 · Cited by 1,235
A Systematic Review of Prevalence Studies on Multimorbidity: Toward a More Uniform Methodology
Fortin, M., Stewart, M., Poitras, M.-È., Almirall, J., & Maddocks, H. L. (2012) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.1337 · Cited by 1,131
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Fortin, M.
- Affiliations
- Université de Sherbrooke (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Fortin, M.
- ORCID
- Fortin, M.
- Venue
- The Annals of Family Medicine
- Publisher
- Annals of Family Medicine
- Published
- 2005-05-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 223-228
- ISSN
- 1544-1709 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-1717
- PMC
- PMC1466875
- OpenAlex
- W2133526648
- Cited by
- 987
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 69 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 71 · 2014: 66 · 2013: 75 · 2012: 67
- FWCI
- 14.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Annals of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
- Keywords
- multimorbidity, chronic disease, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale, disease severity, prevalence, general practice, primary care patients, age differences, sex differences
- MeSH terms
- Family Practice, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Comorbidity, Prevalence
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
