Katz J N, Chang L C, Sangha O, Fossel A H, Bates D W
Department of Rheumatology and Immunology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Med Care. 1996 Jan;34(1):73-84. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199601000-00006.
Comorbidity generally is measured by medical record abstraction, which is expensive and often impractical. The aim of this study was to assess the reproducibility and validity of a comorbidity questionnaire. The authors developed a brief comorbidity questionnaire that included items corresponding to each element of the medical record-based Charlson index. The questionnaire was administered to 170 inpatients. Charlson scores were abstracted from these patients' medical records. We assessed test-retest reliability of the questionnaire and the Charlson index, the correlation between the questionnaire and the Charlson index, and correlations between each comorbidity measure and indicators of health resource utilization including medication use, hospitalizations in the past year, and hospital charges. Test-retest reliability, assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient, was 0.91 for the questionnaire and 0.92 for the chart-based Charlson index. The Spearman correlation between these two measures was 0.63. The correlation between comorbidity measures was weaker in less educated patients. Correlations with indicators of resource utilization were similar for the two comorbidity instruments. The authors found that a questionnaire version of the Charlson index is reproducible, valid, and offers practical advantages over medical record-based assessments.
共病通常通过病历摘要来衡量,这成本高昂且往往不切实际。本研究的目的是评估一份共病问卷的可重复性和有效性。作者开发了一份简短的共病问卷,其中包含与基于病历的查尔森指数的每个要素相对应的项目。该问卷被施用于170名住院患者。查尔森评分从这些患者的病历中提取。我们评估了问卷和查尔森指数的重测信度、问卷与查尔森指数之间的相关性,以及每种共病测量与健康资源利用指标(包括用药情况、过去一年的住院次数和住院费用)之间的相关性。用组内相关系数评估的重测信度,问卷为0.91,基于图表的查尔森指数为0.92。这两种测量方法之间的斯皮尔曼相关性为0.63。在受教育程度较低的患者中,共病测量之间的相关性较弱。两种共病工具与资源利用指标的相关性相似。作者发现,查尔森指数的问卷版本具有可重复性、有效性,并且与基于病历的评估相比具有实际优势。