ReviewScience progress
Synthesizing expert consensus to define a core condition set for multimorbidity measurement: A narrative review.
Review in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Associations of chronic disease and multimorbidity with healthcare utilization, mortality and adverse events in Estonia.Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inconsistent measurement of multimorbidity hinders comparative research and evidence synthesis. To address this, this study is a narrative review, informed by a structured scoping search of three major databases. We synthesized formal expert-consensus studies to identify a foundational core set of conditions that can serve as a pragmatic starting point for improving research comparability. Our synthesis of three expert consensus studies identified a comprehensive core set of 105 consistently recommended condition categories at the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) three-digit level. These conditions span 10 major clinical domains, covering key conditions such as ischemic heart disease, diabetes, dementia, and depression. To facilitate application, we mapped this core set to both ICD-10 and preliminary ICD-11 codes. A foundational consensus for measuring multimorbidity is emerging. We propose a "Core-plus-Customization" framework, where the identified core set serves as an evidence-based starting point for research, requiring local adaptation rather than being a prescriptive "minimum dataset." This operationalized core set provides a practical tool to begin standardizing measurement in the field.
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.