IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i7p2450-d341168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Elixhauser and Charlson Methods for Discriminative Performance in Mortality Risk in Patients with Schizophrenic Disorders

Author

Listed:
  • Kuan-Yi Tsai

    (Department of Community Psychiatry, Kaohsiung Municipal Kai-Syuan Psychiatric Hospital, Kaohsiung 80276, Taiwan)

  • Kuan-Ying Hsieh

    (Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Kaohsiung Municipal Kai-Syuan Psychiatric Hospital, Kaohsiung 80276, Taiwan
    Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan)

  • Shu-Yu Ou

    (Department of Anesthesiology, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Kaohsiung 81362, Taiwan)

  • Frank Huang-Chih Chou

    (Kaohsiung Municipal Kai-Syuan Psychiatric Hospital, Kaohsiung 80276, Taiwan)

  • Yu-Mei Chou

    (Department of Anesthesiology, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Kaohsiung 81362, Taiwan
    Department of Physical Therapy, Shu-Zen Junior College of Medicine and Management, Kaohsiung 82144, Taiwan)

Abstract

Although Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (CCIS) and Elixhauser comorbidity index scores (ECIS) have been used to assess comorbidity in patients with schizophrenia, only CCIS, not ECIS, have been used to predict mortality in this population. This nationwide retrospective study investigated discriminative performance of mortality of these two scales in patients with schizophrenia. Exploiting Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database (NHRID), we identified patients diagnosed with schizophrenia discharged from hospitals between Jan 1, 1996 and Dec 31, 2007. They were followed up for subsequent death. Comorbidities presented one year prior to hospital admissions were identified and adapted to the CCIS and ECIS. Discriminatory ability was evaluated using the adjusted hazard ratio and Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Harrell’s C-statistic. We identified 58,771 discharged patients with schizophrenic disorders and followed them for a mean of 10.4 years, 16.6% of whom had died. Both ECIS and CCIS were significantly associated with mortality, but ECIS had superior discriminatory ability by a lower AIC and higher Harrell’s C-statistic (201231 vs. 201400; 0.856 vs. 0.854, respectively). ECIS had better discriminative performance in mortality risk than CCIS in patients with schizophrenic disorders. Its use may be encouraged for risk adjustment in this population.

Suggested Citation

  • Kuan-Yi Tsai & Kuan-Ying Hsieh & Shu-Yu Ou & Frank Huang-Chih Chou & Yu-Mei Chou, 2020. "Comparison of Elixhauser and Charlson Methods for Discriminative Performance in Mortality Risk in Patients with Schizophrenic Disorders," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:7:p:2450-:d:341168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/7/2450/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/7/2450/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Iván Oterino-Moreira & Susana Lorenzo-Martínez & Ángel López-Delgado & Montserrat Pérez-Encinas, 2022. "Comparison of Three Comorbidity Measures for Predicting In-Hospital Death through a Clinical Administrative Nacional Database," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-13, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:7:p:2450-:d:341168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.