Comorbidities influence the prognosis, clinical outcomes, disease activity, and treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). RA patients have a high-comorbidity burden necessitating their study. Comorbidity indices are used to measure comorbidities and to study their impacts on different outcomes. A large number of such indices are used in clinical research. Some indices have been specifically developed in RA patients.
This review aims to provide an overview of generic and specific comorbidity indices commonly used in RA research.
We performed a critical literature review of comorbidity indices in RA using the PubMed database.
This non-systematic literature review provides an overview of generic and specific comorbidity indices commonly used in RA studies. Some of the older but commonly used comorbidity indices like the Charlson comorbidity index and the Elixhauser comorbidity measure were primarily developed to estimate mortality risk from comorbid diseases. They were not specifically developed for RA patients but have been widely used in rheumatology comorbidity measurement. Of the many comorbidity indices available, only the rheumatic disease comorbidity index (RDCI) and the multimorbidity index have been specifically developed in RA patients. The functional comorbidity index was developed to look at functional disability and has been used in RA patients considering that morbidity is more important than mortality in such patients. While there is limited data comparing these indices, available evidence seems to favor the use of RDCI as it predicts mortality, hospitalization, disability, and healthcare utilization. The choice of the index, however, depends on several factors such as the population under study, outcome of interest, and sources of data. More research is needed to study the RA-specific comorbidity measures to make evidence-based recommendations for the choice of a comorbidity measure.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
1
2%
Other
4
7%
Unknown
27
46%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 February 2018.
All research outputs
#18,587,406
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#4,010
of 5,795 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,242
of 336,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#79
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,795 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
