Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33407455›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Comparing Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices with different weightings to predict in-hospital mortality: an analysis of national inpatient data.

Narayan Sharma, René Schwendimann, Olga Endrich, Dietmar Ausserhofer, Michael Simon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed
–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

84 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Socioeconomic factors and SGLT2 inhibitor initiation in patients with heart failure-a claims data analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Differential COVID-19 Outcomes Across Lysosomal Disorders.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Reporting Quality for Comorbidity Adjustment in Studies Using Korean Health Insurance Claim Data: A Scoping Review.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2026
    Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Narayan SharmaInstitute of Nursing Science (INS), Department Public Health (DPH), Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8698-5469
René SchwendimannInstitute of Nursing Science (INS), Department Public Health (DPH), Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4804-1656
Olga EndrichDirectorate of Medicine, Inselspital University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0839-9821
Dietmar AusserhoferInstitute of Nursing Science (INS), Department Public Health (DPH), Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0319-4766
Michael SimonInstitute of Nursing Science (INS), Department Public Health (DPH), Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. m.simon@unibas.ch.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2349-7219

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding how comorbidity measures contribute to patient mortality is essential both to describe patient health status and to adjust for risks and potential confounding. The Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices are well-established for risk adjustment and mortality prediction. Still, a different set of comorbidity weights might improve the prediction of in-hospital mortality. The present study, therefore, aimed to derive a set of new Swiss Elixhauser comorbidity weightings, to validate and compare them against those of the Charlson and Elixhauser-based van Walraven weights in an adult in-patient population-based cohort of general hospitals.

methodsRetrospective analysis was conducted with routine data of 102 Swiss general hospitals (2012-2017) for 6.09 million inpatient cases. To derive the Swiss weightings for the Elixhauser comorbidity index, we randomly halved the inpatient data and validated the results of part 1 alongside the established weighting systems in part 2, to predict in-hospital mortality. Charlson and van Walraven weights were applied to Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices. Derivation and validation of weightings were conducted with generalized additive models adjusted for age, gender and hospital types.

resultsOverall, the Elixhauser indices, c-statistic with Swiss weights (0.867, 95% CI, 0.865-0.868) and van Walraven's weights (0.863, 95% CI, 0.862-0.864) had substantial advantage over Charlson's weights (0.850, 95% CI, 0.849-0.851) and in the derivation and validation groups. The net reclassification improvement of new Swiss weights improved the predictive performance by 1.6% on the Elixhauser-van Walraven and 4.9% on the Charlson weights.

conclusionsAll weightings confirmed previous results with the national dataset. The new Swiss weightings model improved slightly the prediction of in-hospital mortality in Swiss hospitals. The newly derive weights support patient population-based analysis of in-hospital mortality and seek country or specific cohort-based weightings.

Indexed as

ComorbidityHospital MortalityInpatientsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentYoung AdultComorbidity indicesIn-hospital mortalityInpatient dataRisk adjustmentWeights

Identifiers

PMID33407455
PMCPMC7786470

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.