ArticlePloS one2016
The Use of a Bayesian Hierarchy to Develop and Validate a Co-Morbidity Score to Predict Mortality for Linked Primary and Secondary Care Data from the NHS in England.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Considerations for selecting and implementing comorbidity indices when using secondary data sources: a guide for health researchers.International journal of population data science · 2025Review
- UEG Week 2019 Poster Presentations.United European gastroenterology journal · 2019Article
- Approach to record linkage of primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink to other health-related patient data: overview and implications.European journal of epidemiology · 2019Article
- Prognostic Indices for Advance Care Planning in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe have assessed whether the linkage between routine primary and secondary care records provided an opportunity to develop an improved population based co-morbidity score with the combined information on co-morbidities from both health care settings.
methodsWe extracted all people older than 20 years at the start of 2005 within the linkage between the Hospital Episodes Statistics, Clinical Practice Research Datalink, and Office for National Statistics death register in England. A random 50% sample was used to identify relevant diagnostic codes using a Bayesian hierarchy to share information between similar Read and ICD 10 code groupings. Internal validation of the score was performed in the remaining 50% and discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C statistic. Comparisons were made over time, age, and consultation rate with the Charlson and Elixhauser indexes.
results657,264 people were followed up from the 1st January 2005. 98 groupings of codes were derived from the Bayesian hierarchy, and 37 had an adjusted weighting of greater than zero in the Cox proportional hazards model. 11 of these groupings had a different weighting dependent on whether they were coded from hospital or primary care. The C statistic reduced from 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.88-0.88) in the first year of follow up, to 0.85 (0.85-0.85) including all 5 years. When we stratified the linked score by consultation rate the association with mortality remained consistent, but there was a significant interaction with age, with improved discrimination and fit in those under 50 years old (C = 0.85, 0.83-0.87) compared to the Charlson (C = 0.79, 0.77-0.82) or Elixhauser index (C = 0.81, 0.79-0.83).
conclusionsThe use of linked population based primary and secondary care data developed a co-morbidity score that had improved discrimination, particularly in younger age groups, and had a greater effect when adjusting for co-morbidity than existing scores.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.