Prognostic Impact of Charlson Comorbidity Index Obtained from Medical Records and Claims Data on 1-year Mortality and Length of Stay in Gastric Cancer Patients.
10.3961/jpmph.2009.42.2.117
- Author:
Min Ho KYUNG
1
;
Seok Jun YOON
;
Hyeong Sik AHN
;
Se min HWANG
;
Hyun Ju SEO
;
Kyoung Hoon KIM
;
Hyeung Keun PARK
Author Information
1. Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University, Korea. yoonsj02@korea.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article ; English Abstract
- Keywords:
Charlson comorbidity index;
Stomach neoplasms;
Claims data;
Medical records;
Length of stay;
Mortality
- MeSH:
Aged;
Comorbidity;
Female;
Humans;
Insurance Claim Review;
*Length of Stay;
Male;
Medical Records;
Middle Aged;
Neoplasm Staging;
Prognosis;
Severity of Illness Index;
Stomach Neoplasms/diagnosis/*mortality
- From:Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health
2009;42(2):117-122
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: We tried to evaluate the agreement of the Charlson comorbidity index values (CCI) obtained from different sources (medical records and National Health Insurance claims data) for gastric cancer patients. We also attempted to assess the prognostic value of these data for predicting 1-year mortality and length of the hospital stay (length of stay). METHODS: Medical records of 284 gastric cancer patients were reviewed, and their National Health Insurance claims data and death certificates were also investigated. To evaluate agreement, the kappa coefficient was tested. Multiple logistic regression analysis and multiple linear regression analysis were performed to evaluate and compare the prognostic power for predicting 1 year mortality and length of stay. RESULTS: The CCI values for each comorbid condition obtained from 2 different data sources appeared to poorly agree (kappa: 0.00-0.59). It was appeared that the CCI values based on both sources were not valid prognostic indicators of 1-year mortality. Only medical record-based CCI was a valid prognostic indicator of length of stay, even after adjustment of covariables (beta = 0.112, 95% CI = [0.017-1.267]). CONCLUSIONS: There was a discrepancy between the data sources with regard to the value of CCI both for the prognostic power and its direction. Therefore, assuming that medical records are the gold standard for the source for CCI measurement, claims data is not an appropriate source for determining the CCI, at least for gastric cancer.
