20 Charlson, M.E., et al., A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

J Chronic Dis, 1987. 40(5): p. 373 83. 21 Roos, L.L., Jr., J.P. Nicol, and S.M. Cageorge, Using administrative data for longitudinal research: comparisons with primary data collection. J Chronic Dis, 1987. 40(1): p. 41 9. 22 Romano, P.S., L.L. Roos, and J.G. Jollis, Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. J Clin Epidemiol, 1993. 46(10): p. 10759; discussion 199 8190. 23 DHoore, W., A, Bouckaert, and C. Tilquin, Practical considerations on the use of the Charlson comorbidity index with administrative data bases,. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1996. 49(12): p.1429-33 24 DHoore, W., C. Sicotte, and C. Tilquin, Risk adjustment in outcome assessment: the Charlson comorbidity index. Methods Inf Med, 1993. 32 (5): p. 382-7. 25 Ghali, W.A., et al, Searching for an improved clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1996, 49(3): p. 273-8 26 Cleves, M.A., N. Sanchez, and M. Draheim, Evaluation of two competing methods for calculating Charlsons comorbidity index when analyzing short-term mortality using administrative data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1997. 50(8): p. 903-8 27 Librero, J., S. Peiro, and R, Ordinana, Chronic comrobidity and outcomes of hospital care: length of stay, mortality, and readmission at 30 and 365 days. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1999. 52(3): p.171-9 28 Keiszak,S.M., et al., A Comparison of Charlson comorbidity index derived medical record data and administrative billing data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1999. 52(2): p.137-42 29 Voaklander,D.C., et al., Self-report co-morbidity and health related quality of life- a comparison with record based comorbidity measures. Social Indicators Research, 2004. 66 :p.213-28 30 Humphries, K.H., et al., Co-morbidity data in outcomes research: are clinical data derived from administrative databases a reliable alternative to chart review? J of Clinical Epidemiology, 2000. 53(4): p. 343-9 31 Iezzoni, L. I., Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med, 1997. 127(8 Pt 2): p. 666-74 32 Schneeweiss, S. and M. MAclure, Use of comorbidity scores for control of confounding in studies using administrative databases. Int j Epidemiology, 2000. 29(5): p. 891-8 33 Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris R, Coffey R. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36(1):8-27. 34 Godfield, N., et al., Ambulatory Patient Groups, Version 3.0a classification system for payment of ambulatory visits. J Ambul CareManage, 2008. 31(1): p.2-16 36 Li, B., et al., Risk adjustment performance of Charlson and Elixhauser comorbities in ICD-9 and ICD-10 administrative databases. BMC Health Serv Res, 2008, 8: p.12 37 Southern, D.A., H. Quan, and W.A. Ghali, Comparison of the Elixhauser and Chalson/Deyo methods of comorbidity measurement in administrative data. MedCare, 2004. 42(4): p. 35560. 38 Stukenborg, G.J., D.P. Wagner and A.F. Connors, Jr., Comparison of the performance of two comorbidity measures, with and without formation from MedCare, 2001. 39(7): p. 72739.