176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19349741)
21. Inter-rater reliability and annual rescoring of the Charlson comorbidity index.
Bernardini J; Callen S; Fried L; Piraino B
Adv Perit Dial; 2004; 20():125-7. PubMed ID: 15384811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Reliability of staging, prognosis, and comorbidity data collection in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) multicenter outcomes database.
Kho ME; Lepisto EM; Niland JC; Friedberg JW; Lacasce AS; Weeks JC
Cancer; 2008 Dec; 113(11):3209-12. PubMed ID: 18855918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Stroke: the Elixhauser Index for comorbidity adjustment of in-hospital case fatality.
Zhu H; Hill MD
Neurology; 2008 Jul; 71(4):283-7. PubMed ID: 18645167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Risk adjustment performance of Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidities in ICD-9 and ICD-10 administrative databases.
Li B; Evans D; Faris P; Dean S; Quan H
BMC Health Serv Res; 2008 Jan; 8():12. PubMed ID: 18194561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Comorbidity information in older patients at an emergency visit: self-report vs. administrative data had poor agreement but similar predictive validity.
Susser SR; McCusker J; Belzile E
J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 May; 61(5):511-5. PubMed ID: 18394546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. [A comparative study on comorbidity measurements with Lookback period using health insurance database: focused on patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention].
Kim KH; Ahn LS
J Prev Med Public Health; 2009 Jul; 42(4):267-73. PubMed ID: 19675404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Validation of diagnostic codes within medical services claims.
Wilchesky M; Tamblyn RM; Huang A
J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Feb; 57(2):131-41. PubMed ID: 15125622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Cross-national comparative performance of three versions of the ICD-10 Charlson index.
Sundararajan V; Quan H; Halfon P; Fushimi K; Luthi JC; Burnand B; Ghali WA;
Med Care; 2007 Dec; 45(12):1210-5. PubMed ID: 18007172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. The utility of administrative data for measuring adherence to cancer surveillance care guidelines.
Cooper GS; Schultz L; Simpkins J; Lafata JE
Med Care; 2007 Jan; 45(1):66-72. PubMed ID: 17279022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Comparing a medical records-based and a claims-based index for measuring comorbidity in patients with lung or colon cancer.
Kehl KL; Lamont EB; McNeil BJ; Bozeman SR; Kelley MJ; Keating NL
J Geriatr Oncol; 2015 May; 6(3):202-10. PubMed ID: 25662785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Interaction between parathyroid hormone and the Charlson comorbidity index on survival of incident haemodialysis patients.
Morrone LF; Mazzaferro S; Russo D; Aucella F; Cozzolino M; Facchini MG; Galfrè A; Malberti F; Mereu MC; Nordio M; Pertosa G; Santoro D;
Nephrol Dial Transplant; 2009 Sep; 24(9):2859-65. PubMed ID: 19369685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Contrast-induced nephropathy among Israeli hospitalized patients: incidence, risk factors, length of stay and mortality.
Shema L; Ore L; Geron R; Kristal B
Isr Med Assoc J; 2009 Aug; 11(8):460-4. PubMed ID: 19891232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Validation of computerized Swedish horse insurance data against veterinary clinical records.
Penell JC; Egenvall A; Bonnett BN; Pringle J
Prev Vet Med; 2007 Dec; 82(3-4):236-51. PubMed ID: 17644201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. An electronic application for rapidly calculating Charlson comorbidity score.
Hall WH; Ramachandran R; Narayan S; Jani AB; Vijayakumar S
BMC Cancer; 2004 Dec; 4():94. PubMed ID: 15610554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Metastatic lymph node ratio is an independent prognostic factor in gastric cancer.
Asoglu O; Karanlik H; Parlak M; Kecer M; Muslumanoglu M; Igci A; Ozmen V; Gulluoglu M; Kapran Y
Hepatogastroenterology; 2009; 56(91-92):908-13. PubMed ID: 19621727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Agreement between administrative claims and the medical record in identifying patients with a diagnosis of hypertension.
Bullano MF; Kamat S; Willey VJ; Barlas S; Watson DJ; Brenneman SK
Med Care; 2006 May; 44(5):486-90. PubMed ID: 16641668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Evaluation of comorbidity indices for inpatient mortality prediction models.
Martins M; Blais R
J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Jul; 59(7):665-9. PubMed ID: 16765268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. First-year treatment adherence among outpatients initiating antihypertensive medication in Korea: results of a retrospective claims review.
Sung SK; Lee SG; Lee KS; Kim DS; Kim KH; Kim KY
Clin Ther; 2009 Jun; 31(6):1309-20. PubMed ID: 19695396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. How well does routine hospitalisation data capture information on comorbidity in New Zealand?
Sarfati D; Hill S; Purdie G; Dennett E; Blakely T
N Z Med J; 2010 Mar; 123(1310):50-61. PubMed ID: 20360779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Prognostic significance of tumor size in T3 gastric cancer.
Liu X; Xu Y; Long Z; Zhu H; Wang Y
Ann Surg Oncol; 2009 Jul; 16(7):1875-82. PubMed ID: 19373514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
