Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2020 Dec 14;75(4):e13838. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.13838

Do morbidity measures predict the decline of activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living amongst older inpatients? A systematic review

Cheng Hwee Soh 1, Syed Wajih Ul Hassan 1, Julian Sacre 1, Wen Kwang Lim 1, Andrea B Maier 1,2,✉
PMCID: PMC8047900  PMID: 33202078

Abstract

Objectives

Older adults often suffer from multimorbidity, which results in hospitalisations. These are often associated with poor health outcomes such as functional dependence and mortality. The aim of this review was to summarise the current literature on the capacities of morbidity measures in predicting activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) amongst inpatients.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed using four databases: Medline, Cochrane, Embase, and Cinahl Central from inception to 6th March 2019. Keywords included comorbidity, multimorbidity, ADL, and iADL, along with specific morbidity measures. Articles reporting on morbidity measures predicting ADL and IADL decline amongst inpatients aged 65 years or above were included.

Results

Out of 7334 unique articles, 12 articles were included reporting on 7826 inpatients (mean age 77.6 years, 52.7% females). Out of five morbidity measures, the Charlson Comorbidity Index was most often reported. Overall, morbidity measures were poorly associated with ADL and IADL decline amongst older inpatients.

Conclusion

Morbidity measures are poor predictors for ADL or IADL decline amongst older inpatients and follow‐up duration does not alter the performance of morbidity measures.

Review criteria

  • The systematic review was conducted using four databases to evaluate the predictive performance of morbidity measures and (instrumental) activities of daily living from inception to 2019.

  • The systematic review adheres to the PRISMA guidelines, with articles screening and data extraction being performed by two independent reviewers.

Message for the clinic

  • Morbidity measures are poor predictors for functional decline amongst older inpatients.

  • Follow‐up duration does not alter the performance of morbidity measures.

1. INTRODUCTION

Life expectancy has increased significantly, but the healthspan, the time spent living without disease, is not increasing proportionally. 1 , 2 , 3 The co‐existence of two or more chronic diseases is termed multimorbidity 4 , 5 and its effect on patients’ functioning is of increasing interest. 6 , 7 Amongst major western countries, 62% of adults aged 65‐74 years and 81.5% of adults aged 85 years and over suffer from multimorbidity. 8

To quantify morbidity, morbidity measures such as the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) have been developed to predict clinical outcomes, including readmission to hospital, functional decline, and mortality. 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 Activities of daily living (ADL) and Instrumental (I) ADL are often used to assess functional performance 13 , 14 and it has been associated with poor quality of life, hospital admission and mortality. 15 , 16 Older patients suffering from functional decline utilise more healthcare resources and are at risk of rehospitalisation and mortality, 17 hence the importance of predicting functional decline amongst inpatients. 16 Morbidity measures are often applied in clinical settings to reflect the severity of patients’ condition. However, the capacity of morbidity measures in predicting ADL and IADL decline remains contentious. 9 , 10

The objective of this systematic review is to summarise the current literature on the capacities of morbidity measures to predict ADL and IADL decline amongst older inpatients.

2. METHODS

2.1. Search strategy

A systematic search was performed from inception to 6th March 2019 in four databases: MEDLINE(R), Embase Classic and Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials via the Ovid platform, and CINAHL complete. Keywords included “comorbidity,” “multimorbidity,” “activities of daily living,” and a list of morbidity measures (Table S1). After removing duplicates, articles were screened by two independent reviewers (CHS and SWH). Any conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer (JS or ABM).

2.2. Eligibility criteria

Longitudinal studies reporting morbidity measures and their association with ADL and IADL amongst inpatients were included. Exclusion criteria were articles in a language other than English, cross‐sectional study design, case reports and reviews, mean or median age of the cohort being less than 65 years, and American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score. ASA score is being excluded because of its subjective assessment of patients’ overall health without objective scoring of diseases. 18

2.3. Quality assessment

The quality of the included articles was assessed by two independent reviewers (SWH and CHS) by an adjusted Newcastle‐Ottawa Quality Assessment scale (NOS) (Table S2). 19 A maximum of eight stars could be awarded to an article for its quality. Articles with six stars or above were deemed to be high quality, three to five stars being fair quality, and two stars or below being poor quality. 20 A high‐quality study indicates a low risk of bias, a fair quality study indicates a medium risk of bias and a poor quality study indicates a high risk of bias. 21

2.4. Data extraction

Data extracted from the included articles included sample size, mean or median age, sex, index disease, morbidity measure, follow‐up duration, outcome measure, and association between the morbidity measure used and ADL and/or IADL.

2.5. Statistical interpretation

A P value of .05 or below was considered significant. If the results were expressed as area under the curve, values between 0.5 and 0.7 were considered as a weak association, 0.7‐0.8 as a moderate association, and 0.8‐1.0 as a strong association. 19 Spearman correlation values of .4 or below, .4‐.6, and above .6 were considered weak, moderate and strong, respectively. 22

3. RESULTS

A total of 12 800 articles were identified by the search. After duplicate removal, 7334 articles were included for the title and abstract screening and 1312 articles were selected for full‐text screening. Twelve articles met the eligibility criteria (Figure 1) including a total of 7826 inpatient (mean age 77.6 years, 52.7% females). Articles reported patient populations admitted to internal medicine wards (n = 5), 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 cancer patients (n = 2), 28 , 29 acute stroke patients (n = 2), 30 , 31 infectious diseases patients (n = 1) 32 and geriatric rehabilitation patients (n = 1) 33 (Table 1). The follow‐up duration ranged from the length of hospital stay to two years post‐discharge.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA flowchart

TABLE 1.

Characteristics of included studies

Author, year Ctry Age (years) Sample size (n) Female (%) Patient group
Buurman, 2011 23 NL 78.2 (7.8) 639 53.8 Internal medicine
Dent, 2015 24 MX 72.8 (8.1) 254 53.9 Geriatric and internal medicine
Extermann, 1998 28 US 75 [63‐91] 203 60.6 Cancer
Goto, 2018 32 JP 81.5 (6.7) 131 52.7 Acute infectious disease
Marengoni, 2004 26 IT NG 830 50.5 Internal medicine
Maestu, 2007 29 ES 74 [70‐83] 59 10.2 Non‐small cell lung cancer
Rozzini, 2002 33 IT 78.9 (7.4) 493 70.8 Geriatric rehabilitation
Susser, 2008 34 CA NG 520 60 Emergency department
Tessier, 2008 30 CA 69.7 (12.5) 437 44 Acute stroke
Tuttolomondo, 2008 31 IT 76.5 (9.8) 1878 51.7 Acute stroke
Fimognari, 2017 25 IT 85.7 (8.1) 696 51.9 Geriatric and internal medicine
Valpato, 2007 27 IT 77.4 (7.2) 1686 48.4 Geriatric and internal medicine
Open in a new tab

Age was stated as mean (SD) or median [IQR].

Abbreviations: CA, Canada; Ctry, Country; ES, Spain; IT, Italy; Japan, JP; MX, Mexico; NG, not given; NL, The Netherlands; US, United States of America.

Reported morbidity measures included the CCI (n = 8), 23 , 24 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 Cumulative Illness Rating Scale‐Geriatrics (CIRS‐G) (n = 2), 27 , 28 Geriatric Index of Comorbidity (GIC) (n = 3), 25 , 26 , 33 Functional Comorbidity Index (FCI) (n = 1) 30 and Kaplan Feinstein Index (KFI) (n = 1). 29 Instruments used to measure ADLs included Katz index of Activities of Daily Living (KADL) (n = 6), 23 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 32 , 33 Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living (BADL) (n = 3) 24 , 25 , 27 and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (n = 3). 28 , 29 , 30

Table 2 shows the reported associations of morbidity measures and ADL/IADL. Two articles reported weak associations (AUC of 0.59 and R 2 of .12) 24 , 29 between CCI and ADL dependency at discharge, while another article showed a significant association (OR = 4.6, 95% CI: 2.7‐7.8). 31 One article reported the performance of CCI conducted in three different ways: self‐report CCI, administrative data‐derived CCI, and combined CCI, and all of them were shown to be weak predictors (AUC = 0.51, 0.54 and 0.52, respectively) 34 for ADL decline 4 months postdischarge. One article showed a moderate association between CCI and IADL decline (AUC = 0.72), 30 while another article showed a signification association (OR = 4.2, 95% CI: 1.2‐14.7) between CCI score of three or above and KADL decline at 6 months postdischarge. 32 CCI was insignificantly associated with KADL and IADL decline one‐ and two‐years post‐discharge. 23 , 28

TABLE 2.

The association between morbidity measures and ADL and IADL decline amongst older inpatients

Author (year) Morbidity measures ADL/IADL FU Results Sig Assoc
Follow‐up <3 mo
Dent 201524 CCI BADL dcg AUC 0.59 (0.52‐0.67) — Weak
Sens. 47.7 —
Spec. 61.2 —
Marengoni 200426 GIC (65‐75 y.o.) KADL dcg OR 1.1 (0.8‐1.6) b NS —
1.1 (0.8‐1.6) c —
GIC (75 y.o.+) 1.5 (1.2‐2.0) b S —
1.5 (1.2‐2.0) c —
Maestu 200729 CCI scores KADL dcg R 2 0.034 NS Weak
IADL dcg 0.122 NS Weak
KFI KADL dcg ‐0.116 NS Weak
IADL dcg ‐0.385 S Weak
Rozzini 200233 GIC KADL dcg R 2 0.32 — Weak
Tuttolomondo 200831 CCI ADL dcg OR 0‐1: 1 S —
≥2: 4.6 (2.7‐7.8)
Fimognari 201725 GIC BADL dcg OR 1‐2: 1 NS —
3‐4: 1.1 (0.6‐2)
Valpato 200727 CIRS BADL dcg OR 0‐6: 1 S —
7‐9: 2.0 (1.1‐3.5)
≥10: 2.1 (1.2‐3.9)
3 mo < Follow‐up ≤ 6 mo
Susser 200834 sr‐CCI ADL 4 mo AUC 0.51 (0.44‐0.62) — Weak
ad‐CCI 0.54 (0.47‐0.60) — Weak
c‐CCI 0.52 (0.46‐0.58) — Weak
Goto 201832 CCI KADL 6 mo OR <3: 1 S —
≥3: 4.2 (1.2‐14.0)
Tessier 200830 CCI IADL 6 mo AUC 0.71 — Mod.
FCI IADL 6 mo AUC 0.71 — Mod.
Follow‐up >6 mo
Buurman 201123 CCI KADL 1 y OR a 1.04 (0.93‐1.2) NS —
Extermann 199828 CCI KADL 2 y R 2 0.2 — Weak
IADL 2 y 0.18 — Weak
CIRS‐G KADL 2 y 0.18 — Weak
IADL 2 y 0.23 — Weak
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: ad‐CCI, administrative data‐derived CCI; ADL, Activities of Daily Living; Assoc., Association; AUC, Area Under the Curve; BADL, Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living; c‐CCI, combined CCI; CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index; CIRS‐G, Cumulative Illness Rating Score‐Geriatric; dcg, discharge; FCI, Functional Comorbidity Index; FU, follow‐up; GIC, Geriatric Index of Comorbidity; IADL, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living; KADL, Katz Index of Activities of Daily Living; KFI, Kaplan Feinstein Index; Mod., moderate; NS, Not significant; OR, Odds ratio; R 2, Coefficient of determination; S, Significant; sens., sensitivity; Sig., Significance; spec., specificity; sr‐CCI, self‐report CCI; y.o., years old.

a

Univariate analysis.

b

Model 1 = All patients included;

c

Model 2 = Patients with MMSE > 16 included. Results were stated as morbidity score: statistical result (95% confidence interval) or statistical result per one‐point increase.

Of the two articles reporting CIRS, a score of 7 or above was shown to be significantly associated with BADL decline at discharge (OR = 2.0, 95% CI: 1.1‐3.5), 27 while another article showed an insignificant association with IADL and KADL 2 years post‐discharge (R 2 = .23 and R 2 = .18, respectively). 28 Amongst the two articles reporting GIC and KADL decline at discharge, one article reported a moderate association (R 2 = .32), 33 while another article indicated a significant association but only amongst inpatients aged 75 years or above (OR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.2‐2.0). 26 One article showed an insignificant association between GIC and BADL decline at discharge (OR = 1.1, 95% CI: 0.6‐2.0). 25

One article reported KFI and its association with ADLs decline at discharge. KFI was shown to be unable to predict KADL (R 2 = .12) but predicted IADL moderately (R 2 = .39). 29 For IADL decline 6 months postdischarge, FCI was shown to be a moderate predictor (AUC = 0.72). 30

A complete breakdown of the quality assessment of all included studies is shown in Table 3. Overall, the included studies had a fair quality with a mean score of 5.5 out of 8.

TABLE 3.

Risk of Bias Assessment Score for studies

Author (Year) Sel/3 Comp/2 Out/3 Total
1 2 3 1 1 2 3 Stars
Buurman 2011 23 * * * * * 5/8
Dent 2015 24 * * * * * 5/8
Extermann 1998 28 * * ** * 5/8
Goto 2018 32 * * * 3/8
Marengoni 2004 26 * * * ** * * * 8/8
Maestu 2007 29 * * * 3/8
Rozzini 2002 33 * * ** * * 6/8
Susser 2008 34 * * ** * 5/8
Tessier 2008 30 * * * * * 5/8
Tuttolomondo 2008 31 * * * ** * * * 8/8
Fimognari 2017 25 * * * ** * * 7/8
Valpato 2007 27 * * ** * * 6/8
Open in a new tab

Refer to the adapted NOS (Table S2) in Appendices for the criteria to score Risk of Bias for the studies.

Abbreviations: Comp: Comparability; Out: Outcome; Sel: Selection.

4. DISCUSSION

Morbidity measures inconsistently predict ADL and IADL decline amongst older inpatients independent of the follow‐up period.

The poor performance of morbidity measures predicting ADL and IADL in older inpatients might be because of the heterogeneity of older adults presenting to the hospital with a wide range of acute diseases. The development of morbidity measures was based on homogenous populations 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 and hence applying these morbidity measures to heterogeneous populations might reduce its performance as a prognostic tool. The wide range of acute diseases resulting in hospitalisation has a huge impact on patients’ physiological reserve that even if patients suffer from the same comorbidities, their functional decline because of the impact of the index disease might be different. 41 Previous studies including older inpatients have shown that not only typically disabling conditions, such as a stroke or hip fracture, but also exacerbations of cardiorespiratory chronic conditions can lead to functional deterioration. 42 , 43 Moreover, the severity of acute diseases is strongly associated with a functional decline. 25 Hence, including index diseases in morbidity measures could possibly improve the performance as prognostic tools for clinical outcomes.

Despite being the most reported morbidity measure and a predictor for long‐term mortality amongst older inpatients, 44 the CCI predicted functional decline poorly. The CCI includes 22 chronic diseases 35 and has been validated in predicting mortality amongst older breast cancer patients in 1987. The pre‐defined weighted diseases included in the CCI might, therefore, limit the capacity to predict other clinical outcomes. Furthermore, diseases such as sarcopenia 45 and arthritis 46 are not part of the CCI and might be better in predicting functional decline.

While the majority of morbidity measures were developed to predict mortality, FCI was developed to predict physical function, 37 measured by the physical functioning subscale of the Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36). The SF‐36 is a precursory measure of ADL and IADL decline 47 and this could, therefore, explain the moderate association shown between FCI and IADL. However, the FCI still requires further validation as it was only reported in one article.

The inter‐rater reliability of morbidity measures has been reported to be poor and it could potentially dampen the performance as a prognostic tool. 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 Despite the availability of guidelines to score morbidity measures such as KFI and CIRS, the scoring of the diseases and the disease severity is still prone to subjectivity and this could be because of varying quality in reporting the medical history. 52 , 53 The medical history is crucial in assessing the severity of diseases. A systematic review has shown that medical history information is frequently missing in the electronic medical record, which is a major concern in clinical practice. 54 Poor organisation of contents, missing or conflicting information in medical history could lead to the misinterpretation of the severity of diseases and disagreement between clinicians. 55 Moreover, the inter‐rater reliability was shown to not improve, despite clinicians using the morbidity measure over time. 51

While morbidity measures are poor predictors for ADL and IADL decline, other health domains such as physical performance and cognitive function are strongly associated with functional decline. 46 , 56 The Short Physical Performance Battery (including gait speed, chair stand, and balance test) is an assessment tool used to evaluate physical performance of the lower extremity 57 and it strongly predicts functional decline amongst older inpatients. 58 , 59 Global cognitive function, measured with tools such as the Mini‐Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment, is also a strong predictor for a functional decline. 60 , 61 , 62 Incorporation of physical performance and cognitive function into morbidity measures might improve the predictive capacity of morbidity measures in predicting a functional decline.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review summarising the association of morbidity measures with ADL and IADL decline amongst inpatients. The search strategy for this review was comprehensive to include a wide variety of morbidity measures used in older hospitalised patients. 63 Only a limited number of articles addressed the use of morbidity measures predicting ADL and IADL decline. Because of the differences in statistical analysis and cut‐off values chosen for each morbidity measure, a meta‐analysis could not be performed.

5. CONCLUSION

Overall, morbidity measures are poor predictors for ADL and IADL decline amongst older inpatients. A prognostic tool for inpatients’ functional decline is crucial as identifying those who are at higher risk of functional decline could guide tailored interventions to improve functional outcomes.

DISCLOSURES

The authors report no conflict of interest.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Cheng Hwee Soh: Concept/design, Screening for the eligible article, Data extraction, Data analyses/interpretation, Drafting article. Syed Wajih Ul Hassan: Concept/design, Screening for the eligible article, Data extraction. Julian Sacre: Concept/design, Resolving conflicts, Critical revision of the article. Wen Kwang Lim: Critical revision of the article, Approval of article. Andrea B Maier: Concept/design, Resolving conflicts, Critical revision of article, Approval of article.

Supporting information

Table S1‐S2

Click here for additional data file. (34.1KB, docx)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would thank Patrick Condron (senior liasion librarian, Brownless Biomedical Library, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, the University of Melbourne), who greatly assisted with the construction of the search strategy.

Soh CH, Hassan SWU, Sacre J, Lim WK, Maier AB. Do morbidity measures predict the decline of activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living amongst older inpatients? A systematic review. Int J Clin Pract.2021;75:e13838. 10.1111/ijcp.13838

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All data generated or analysed in this study are extracted from the published articles included in this systematic review.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Seals DR, Melov S. Translational geroscience: emphasizing function to achieve optimal longevity. Aging (Albany NY). 2014;6:718‐730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Crimmins EM. Lifespan and healthspan: past, present, and promise. Gerontologist. 2015;55:901‐911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Christensen K, Doblhammer G, Rau R, Vaupel JW. Ageing populations: the challenges ahead. Lancet. 2009;374:1196‐1208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Fortin M, Soubhi H, Hudon C, Bayliss EA, van den Akker M. Multimorbidity's many challenges. BMJ. 2007;334:1016‐1017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. van den Akker M, Buntinx F, Knottnerus JA. Comorbidity or multimorbidity: what's in a name? A review of literature. Eur J Gen Pract. 1996;2:65‐70. [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Valderas JM, Starfield B, Sibbald B, Salisbury C, Roland M. Defining comorbidity: implications for understanding health and health services. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7:357‐363. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Ritchie C. Health care quality and multimorbidity: the jury is still out. Med Care. 2007;45:477‐479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Quiñones AR, Markwardt S, Botoseneanu A. Multimorbidity combinations and disability in older adults. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;71:823‐830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. de Groot V, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. How to measure comorbidity: a critical review of available methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:221‐229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Aslam F, Khan NA. Tools for the assessment of comorbidity burden in rheumatoid arthritis. Front Med. 2018;5:39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Radner H, Yoshida K, Mjaavatten MD, et al. Development of a multimorbidity index: Impact on quality of life using a rheumatoid arthritis cohort. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2015;45:167‐173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Vetrano DL, Rizzuto D, Calderón‐Larrañaga A, et al. Trajectories of functional decline in older adults with neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular multimorbidity: a Swedish cohort study. PLoS Med. 2018;15:e1002503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Wu CY, Hu HY, Li CP, Fang YT, Huang N, Chou YJ. The association between functional disability and acute care utilization among the elderly in Taiwan. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2013;57:177‐183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Zekry D, Frangos E, Graf C, et al. Diabetes, comorbidities and increased long‐term mortality in older patients admitted for geriatric inpatient care. Diabetes Metab. 2012;38:149‐155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Kruse RL, Petroski GF, Mehr DR, Banaszak‐Holl J, Intrator O. Activities of daily living (ADL) trajectories surrounding acute hospitalization of long‐stay nursing home residents. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61:1909‐1918. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Covinsky KE, Palmer RM, Fortinsky RH, et al. Loss of independence in activities of daily living in older adults hospitalized with medical illnesses: increased vulnerability with age. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51:451‐458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Liu SK, Montgomery J, Yan Y, et al. Association of hospital admission risk profile score with skilled nursing or acute rehabilitation facility discharges in hospitalized older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64:2095‐2100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Daabiss M. American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status classification. Indian J Anaesth. 2011;55:111‐115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, et al. Evaluating Non‐Randomised Intervention Studies. Winchester, England: Health Technology Assessment. 2003;7(27):iii‐x, 1‐173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V. The Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of case‐control studies in meta‐analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2011;25:603‐605. [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Viswanathan M, Ansari MT, Berkman ND, et al. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care Assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24:69‐71. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Buurman BM, Hoogerduijn JG, de Haan RJ, et al. Geriatric conditions in acutely hospitalized older patients: prevalence and one‐year survival and functional decline. PLoS One. 2011;6:e26951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Dent E, Perez‐Zepeda M. Comparison of five indices for prediction of adverse outcomes in hospitalised Mexican older adults: a cohort study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2015;60:89‐95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Fimognari FL, Pierantozzi A, De Alfieri W, et al. The severity of acute illness and functional trajectories in hospitalized older medical patients. J Gerontol Ser A. 2016;72:102‐108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Marengoni A, Aguero‐Torres H, Cossi S, et al. Poor mental and physical health differentially contributes to disability in hospitalized geriatric patients of different ages. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004;19:27‐34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Volpato S, Onder G, Cavalieri M, et al. Characteristics of nondisabled older patients developing new disability associated with medical illnesses and hospitalization. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:668‐674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Extermann M, Overcash J, Lyman GH, Parr J, Balducci L. Comorbidity and functional status are independent in older cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:1582‐1587. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Maestu I, Munoz J, Gomez‐Aldaravi L, et al. Assessment of functional status, symptoms and comorbidity in elderly patients with advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with gemcitabine and vinorelbine. Clin Transl Oncol. 2007;9:99‐105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Tessier A, Finch L, Daskalopoulou SS, Mayo NE. Validation of the Charlson Comorbidity Index for predicting functional outcome of stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:1276‐1283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Tuttolomondo A, Pedone C, Pinto A, et al. Predictors of outcome in acute ischemic cerebrovascular syndromes: the GIFA study. Int J Cardiol. 2008;125:391‐396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Goto R, Watanabe H, Haruta J, Tsutsumi M, Yokoya S, Maeno T. Identification of prognostic factors for activities of daily living in elderly patients after hospitalization for acute infectious disease in Japan: a 6‐month follow‐up study. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2018;18:615‐622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Rozzini R, Frisoni GB, Ferrucci L, et al. Geriatric Index of Comorbidity: validation and comparison with other measures of comorbidity. Age Ageing. 2002;31:277‐285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Susser SR, McCusker J, Belzile E. Comorbidity information in older patients at an emergency visit: self‐report vs. administrative data had poor agreement but similar predictive validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:511‐515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. 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;40:373‐383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Di Bari M, Balzi D, Roberts AT, et al. Prognostic stratification of older persons based on simple administrative data: development and validation of the "Silver Code," to be used in emergency department triage. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2010;65:159‐164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Groll DL, To T, Bombardier C, Wright JG. The development of a comorbidity index with physical function as the outcome. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:595‐602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Putnam KG, Buist DS, Fishman P, et al. Chronic disease score as a predictor of hospitalization. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass). 2002;13:340‐346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Salvi F, Miller MD, Grilli A, et al. A manual of guidelines to score the modified cumulative illness rating scale and its validation in acute hospitalized elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56:1926‐1931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Von Korff M, Wagner EH, Saunders K. A chronic disease score from automated pharmacy data. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:197‐203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Jones R, White P, Armstrong D, Ashworth M, Peters M. Managing Acute Illness. London, UK: The King’s Fund; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Covinsky KE, Pierluissi E, Johnston CB. Hospitalization‐associated disability: "she was probably able to ambulate, but I'm not sure". JAMA. 2011;306:1782‐1793. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Pierluissi E, Francis DC, Covinsky KE. Patient and hospital factors that lead to adverse outcomes in hospitalized elders. In: Malone ML, Capezuti EA, Palmer RM, eds. Acute Care for Elders: A Model for Interdisciplinary Care. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2014:21‐47. [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Soh CH, Ul Hassan SW, Sacre J, Maier AB. Morbidity measures predicting mortality in inpatients: a systematic review. J Am Med Directors Assoc. 2020;21:462‐468.e7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Walston JD. Sarcopenia in older adults. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2012;24:623‐627. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Jonkman NH, Colpo M, Klenk J, et al. Development of a clinical prediction model for the onset of functional decline in people aged 65–75 years: pooled analysis of four European cohort studies. BMC Geriatrics. 2019;19:179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Hill RD, Mansour E, Valentijn S, Jolles J, van Boxtel M. The SF‐36 as a precursory measure of adaptive functioning in normal aging: the Maastricht Aging Study. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2010;22:433‐439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med. 2012;22:276‐282. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Hall SF, Groome PA, Streiner DL, Rochon PA. Interrater reliability of measurements of comorbid illness should be reported. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:926‐933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Hua‐Gen Li M, Hutchinson A, Tacey M, Duke G. Reliability of comorbidity scores derived from administrative data in the tertiary hospital intensive care setting: a cross‐sectional study. BMJ Health Care Inf. 2019;26:e000016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Imamura K, McKinnon M, Middleton R, Black N. Reliability of a comorbidity measure: the index of co‐existent disease (ICED). J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:1011‐1016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Kaplan MH, Feinstein AR. A critique of methods in reported studies of long‐term vascular complications in patients with diabetes mellitus. Diabetes. 1973;22:160‐174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Linn BS, Linn MW, Gurel L. Cumulative illness rating scale. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1968;16:622‐626. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Brandt K. Poor quality or poor design? A review of the literature on the quality of documentation within the electronic medical record (paper presentation). CIN. 2008;25:302‐303. [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Newschaffer CJ, Bush TL, Penberthy LT. Comorbidity measurement in elderly female breast cancer patients with administrative and medical records data. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:725‐733. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Ramnath U, Rauch L, Lambert EV, Kolbe‐Alexander TL. The relationship between functional status, physical fitness and cognitive performance in physically active older adults: a pilot study. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0194918. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self‐reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol. 1994;49:M85‐94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Corsonello A, Lattanzio F, Pedone C, et al. Prognostic significance of the short physical performance battery in older patients discharged from acute care hospitals. Rejuvenation Res. 2012;15:41‐48. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Volpato S, Cavalieri M, Sioulis F, et al. Predictive value of the short physical performance battery following hospitalization in older patients. J Gerontol Ser A. 2010;66A:89‐96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Dodge HH, Kadowaki T, Hayakawa T, Yamakawa M, Sekikawa A, Ueshima H. Cognitive impairment as a strong predictor of incident disability in specific ADL‐IADL tasks among community‐dwelling elders: the Azuchi Study. Gerontologist. 2005;45:222‐230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Dutzi I, Schwenk M, Kirchner M, Bauer J, Hauer K. Cognitive change in rehabilitation patients with dementia: prevalence and association with rehabilitation success. J Alzheimers Dis. 2017;60:1171‐1182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Lewis MS, Miller LS. Executive control functioning and functional ability in older adults. Clin Neuropsychol. 2007;21:274‐285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Huntley AL, Johnson R, Purdy S, Valderas JM, Salisbury C. Measures of multimorbidity and morbidity burden for use in primary care and community settings: a systematic review and guide. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10:134‐141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1‐S2

Click here for additional data file. (34.1KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analysed in this study are extracted from the published articles included in this systematic review.

Articles from International Journal of Clinical Practice are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES