Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27788230›Full record

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.

Colin J Crooks, Tim R Card, Joe West

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. UEG Week 2019 Poster Presentations.United European gastroenterology journal · 2019
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Prognostic Indices for Advance Care Planning in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Colin J CrooksDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, Clinical Sciences Building, University of Nottingham, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6794-6621
Tim R CardDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, Clinical Sciences Building, University of Nottingham, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom.
Joe WestDivision of Epidemiology and Public Health, Clinical Sciences Building, University of Nottingham, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0802427
6 · The paper itself

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

ComorbidityAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBayes TheoremCohort StudiesData MiningEnglandFemaleHospitalsHumansMaleMedical InformaticsMiddle AgedPrimary Health CarePrognosis

Identifiers

PMID27788230
PMCPMC5082800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.