Methods Inf Med 2017; 56(05): 401-406
DOI: 10.3414/ME17-01-0051
Schattauer GmbH

The Charlson Comorbidity Index in Registry-based Research

Which Version to Use?
Nele Brusselaers
1   Centre for Translational Microbiome Research (CTMR), Department of Microbiology, Tumor- and Cell Biology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
2   Science for Life Laboratory (SciLifeLab), Stockholm, Sweden
Jesper Lagergren
3   Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery, Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
4   Division of Cancer Studies, King’s College London, UK
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received: 17 May 2017

accepted in revised form: 28 August 2017

Publication Date:
24 January 2018 (online)


Background: Comorbidities may have an important impact on survival, and comorbidity scores are often implemented in studies assessing prognosis. The Charlson Comorbidity index is most widely used, yet several adaptations have been published, all using slightly different conversions of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding.

Objective: To evaluate which coding should be used to assess and quantify comorbidity for the Charlson Comorbidity Index for registry-based research, in particular if older ICD versions will be used.

Methods: A systematic literature search was used to identify adaptations and modifications of the ICD-coding of the Charlson Comorbidity Index for general purpose in adults, published in English. Back-translation to ICD version 8 and version 9 was conducted by means of the ICD-code converter of Statistics Sweden.

Results: In total, 16 studies were identified reporting ICD-adaptations of the Charlson Comorbidity Index. The Royal College of Surgeons in the United Kingdom combined 5 versions into an adapted and updated version which appeared appropriate for research purposes. Their ICD-10 codes were back-translated into ICD-9 and ICD-8 according to their proposed adaptations, and verified with previous versions of the Charlson Comorbidity Index.

Conclusion: Many versions of the Charlson Comorbidity Index are used in parallel, so clear reporting of the version, exact ICD- coding and weighting is necessary to obtain transparency and reproducibility in research. Yet, the version of the Royal College of Surgeons is up-to-date and easy-to-use, and therefore an acceptable co-morbidity score to be used in registry-based research especially for surgical patients.

  • References

  • 1 Feinstein AR. The Pre-Therapeutic Classification of Co-Morbidity in Chronic Disease. J Chronic Dis 1970; 23 (07) 455-468. PMID: 26309916.
  • 2 Austin SR, Wong YN, Uzzo RG, Beck JR, Egleston BL. Why Summary Comorbidity Measures Such As the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Elix- hauser Score Work. Medical Care 2015; 53 (09) e65-e72. PMID: 23703645.
  • 3 Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40 (05) 373-383. PMID: 3558716.
  • 4 Sarfati D. Review of methods used to measure co- morbidity in cancer populations: no gold standard exists. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2012; 65 (09) 924-933. PMID: 22739245.
  • 5 Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1994; 47 (11) 1245-1251. PMID: 7722560.
  • 6 Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1992; 45 (06) 613-619. PMID: 1607900.
  • 7 Romano PS, Roos LL, Jollis JG. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1993; 46 (10) 1075-1079 discussion 1081-1090. PMID: 8410092.
  • 8 Leal JR, Laupland KB. Validity of ascertainment of co-morbid illness using administrative databases: a systematic review. Clinical Microbiology and Infection 2010; 16 (06) 715-721. PMID: 19614717.
  • 9 The National Board of Health and Welfare. Social-styrelsen; Sweden: Conversion tables for ICD. Available from:
  • 10 World Health Organisation. History of the development of the ICD 2012.
  • 11 Jette N, Quan H, Hemmelgarn B, Drosler S, Maass C, Moskal L. et al. The development, evolution, and modifications of ICD-10: challenges to the international comparability of morbidity data. Medical Care 2010; 48 (12) 1105-1110. PMID: 20978452.
  • 12 Ludvigsson JF, Andersson E, Ekbom A, Feychting M, Kim JL, Reuterwall C. et al. External review and validation of the Swedish national inpatient register. BMC Public Health 2011; 11: 450. PMID: 21658213.
  • 13 Christensen S, Johansen MB, Christiansen CF, Jensen R, Lemeshow S. Comparison of Charlson comorbidity index with SAPS and APACHE scores for prediction of mortality following intensive care. Clinical Epidemiology 2011; 3: 203-211. PMID: 21750629.
  • 14 Charlson ME, Charlson RE, Peterson JC, Marinopoulos SS, Briggs WM, Hollenberg JP. The Charlson comorbidity index is adapted to predict costs of chronic disease in primary care patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008; 61 (12) 1234-1240. PMID: 18619805.
  • 15 D’Hoore W, Sicotte C, Tilquin C. Risk adjustment in outcome assessment: the Charlson comorbidity index. Methods of Information in Medicine 1993; 32 (05) 382-387. PMID: 8295545.
  • 16 Martins M, Blais R. Evaluation of comorbidity indices for inpatient mortality prediction models. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006; 59 (07) 665-669. PMID: 16765268.
  • 17 Armitage JN, van der Meulen JH. Identifying comorbidity in surgical patients using administrative data with the Royal College of Surgeons Charlson Score. The British Journal of Surgery 2010; 97 (05) 772-781. PMID: 20306528.
  • 18 Bottle A, Aylin P. Comorbidity scores for administrative data benefited from adaptation to local coding and diagnostic practices. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011; 64 (12) 1426-1433. PMID: 21764557.
  • 19 Halfon P, Eggli Y, van Melle G, Chevalier J, Wasserfallen JB, Burnand B. Measuring potentially avoidable hospital readmissions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2002; 55 (06) 573-587. PMID: 12063099.
  • 20 Lix L, Smith M, Pitz M, Ahmed R, Quon H, Griffith J. et al. Cancer data linkage in Manitoba: expanding the infrastructure for research. Winnipeg, MB: Manitoba Centre for Health Policy; 2016. Available from:
  • 21 Nuttall M, van der Meulen J, Emberton M. Charlson scores based on ICD-10 administrative data were valid in assessing comorbidity in patients undergoing urological cancer surgery. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006; 59 (03) 265-273. PMID: 16488357.
  • 22 Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, Fushimi K, Graham P, Hider P. et al. Updating and validating the Charl- son comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. American Journal of Epidemiology 2011; 173 (06) 676-682. PMID: 21330339.
  • 23 Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC. et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Medical Care 2005; 43 (11) 1130-1139. PMID: 16224307.
  • 24 Ramiarina RA, Ramiarina BL, Almeida RM, Pereira WC. Comorbidity adjustment index for the international classification of diseases, 10th revision. Revista de Saude Publica 2008; 42 (04) 590-597. PMID: 18709238.
  • 25 Sundararajan V, Henderson T, Perry C, Muggivan A, Quan H, Ghali WA. New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2004; 57 (12) 1288-1294. PMID: 15617955.
  • 26 Thygesen SK, Christiansen CF, Christensen S, Lash TL, Sorensen HT. The predictive value of ICD-10 diagnostic coding used to assess Charlson comorbidity index conditions in the population- based Danish National Registry of Patients. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2011; 11: 83. PMID: 21619668.
  • 27 Roscigno M, Ceresoli F, Naspro R, Montorsi F, Bertini R, Da Pozzo LF. Predictive accuracy of nephrometric scores can be improved by adding clinical patient characteristics: a novel algorithm combining anatomic tumour complexity, body mass index, and Charlson comorbidity index to depict perioperative complications after nephron- sparing surgery. European Urology 2014; 65 (01) 259-262. PMID: 24128941.
  • 28 Perkins AJ, Kroenke K, Unutzer J, Katon W, Williams Jr. JW, Hope C. et al. Common comorbidity scales were similar in their ability to predict health care costs and mortality. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2004; 57 (10) 1040-1048. PMID: 15528055.
  • 29 Yurkovich M, Avina-Zubieta JA, Thomas J, Gorenchtein M, Lacaille D. A systematic review identifies valid comorbidity indices derived from administrative health data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2015; 68 (01) 3-14. PMID: 25441702.
  • 30 Menendez ME, Neuhaus V, van Dijk CN, Ring D. The Elixhauser comorbidity method outperforms the Charlson index in predicting inpatient death after orthopaedic surgery. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2014; 472 (09) 2878-2886. PMID: 24867450.
  • 31 Mehta HB, Dimou F, Adhikari D, Tamirisa NP, Sieloff E, Williams TP. et al. Comparison of Comorbidity Scores in Predicting Surgical Outcomes. Medical Care 2016; 54 (02) 180-187. PMID: 26595225.
  • 32 Harrell F. Regression coefficients and scoring rules. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1996; 49 (07) 819. PMID: 8691234.
  • 33 Schneeweiss S, Wang PS, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Improved comorbidity adjustment for predicting mortality in Medicare populations. Health Services Research 2003; 38 (04) 1103-1120. PMID: 12968819.