Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Jul;89(7):1276-83. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.049.

Validation of the Charlson Comorbidity Index for predicting functional outcome of stroke.

Author information

  • 1School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.



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.


Two prospective inception cohort studies, in 1996 through 1998 and in 2002 through 2005, with up to 9 months of follow-up.


Participants enrolled in 2 studies were recruited from acute care hospitals in the Montreal area.


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.


Not applicable.


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.


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.


For purposes of case-mix adjustment, the CMI seems to be more than adequate.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk