Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objective: To determine whether a separate comorbidity index is needed to predict functional outcome after stroke, we compared the predictability of the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CMI) and the Functional Comorbidity Index (FCI) to that of a stroke-specific comorbidity index with function quantified with a measure developed with a Rasch model as outcome.
Design: Two prospective inception cohort studies, in 1996 through 1998 and in 2002 through 2005, with up to 9 months of follow-up.
Setting: Participants enrolled in 2 studies were recruited from acute care hospitals in the Montreal area.
Participants: For study one, 1027 persons with a first stroke discharged into the community were eligible; the 437 who were interviewed a second time at 6 months were included in the analysis. In study two, 235 of 262 patients with stroke were enrolled.
Interventions: Not applicable.
Main Outcome Measures: To predict recovery, we developed 3 stroke-specific comorbidity algorithms based on the estimated strength of association between comorbidities and stroke function. The various indices were compared on the basis of their predictive ability with a c statistic.
Results: In study 1, the c statistics were .758, .763, .766, and .763 for the stroke-specific algorithms 1, 2, and 3 and the CMI, respectively. In study 2, the c statistics were .680, .700, .704, .714, and .714 for the algorithms 1, 2, and 3, the CMI, and the FCI, respectively.
Conclusions: For purposes of case-mix adjustment, the CMI seems to be more than adequate.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.049 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!