Back to Browse Journals » Clinical Epidemiology » Volume 1

Potential misinterpretations caused by collapsing upper categories of comorbidity indices: An illustration from a cohort of older breast cancer survivors

Authors Thomas P Ahern, Jaclyn LF Bosco, Rebecca A Silliman, Marianne Ulcickas Yood, et al.

Published 23 June 2009 Volume 2009:1 Pages 93—100


Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 3

Thomas P Ahern1, Jaclyn LF Bosco2, Rebecca A Silliman2, Marianne Ulcickas Yood3, Terry S Field4, Feifei Wei5, Timothy L Lash1, On behalf of the BOW Investigators

1Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA; 2Department of Medicine, Section of Geriatrics, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA; 3Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; 4Meyers Primary Care Institute, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA; 5HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Background: Comorbidity indices summarize complex medical histories into concise ordinal scales, facilitating stratification and regression in epidemiologic analyses. Low subject prevalence in the highest strata of a comorbidity index often prompts combination of upper categories into a single stratum (‘collapsing’).

Objective: We use data from a breast cancer cohort to illustrate potential inferential errors resulting from collapsing a comorbidity index.

Methods: Starting from a full index (0, 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 comorbidities), we sequentially collapsed upper categories to yield three collapsed categorizations. The full and collapsed categorizations were applied to analyses of (1) the association between comorbidity and all-cause mortality, wherein comorbidity was the exposure; (2) the association between older age and all-cause mortality, wherein comorbidity was a candidate confounder or effect modifier.

Results: Collapsing the index attenuated the association between comorbidity and mortality (risk ratio, full versus dichotomized categorization: 4.6 vs 2.1), reduced the apparent magnitude of confounding by comorbidity of the age/mortality association (relative risk due to confounding, full versus dichotomized categorization: 1.14 vs 1.09), and obscured modification of the association between age and mortality on both the absolute and relative scales.

Conclusions: Collapsing categories of a comorbidity index can alter inferences concerning comorbidity as an exposure, confounder and effect modifier.

Keywords: epidemiology, breast neoplasms, comorbidity, confounding factors (epidemiologic), bias (epidemiologic), statistical models

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF] 


Other article by this author:

Concordance of metabolic enzyme genotypes assayed from paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed breast tumors and normal lymphatic tissue

Thomas P Ahern, Mariann Christensen, Deirdre P Cronin-Fenton, et al

Clinical Epidemiology 2010, 2:241-246

Published Date: 22 October 2010

Readers of this article also read:

Optimal delivery of male breast cancer follow-up care: improving outcomes

Ferzoco RM, Ruddy KJ

Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy 2015, 7:371-379

Published Date: 23 November 2015

Clinical utilities of aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer

Chumsri S

International Journal of Women's Health 2015, 7:493-499

Published Date: 6 May 2015

Colorectal cancer in Chinese patients: current and emerging treatment options

Li L, Ma BBY

OncoTargets and Therapy 2014, 7:1817-1828

Published Date: 4 October 2014

The potential clinical applications and prospects of microRNAs in lung cancer

Gao Y, Gao F, Ma JL, Sun WZ, Song LP

OncoTargets and Therapy 2014, 7:901-906

Published Date: 4 June 2014

Clinical epidemiology of epithelial ovarian cancer in the UK

Doufekas K, Olaitan A

International Journal of Women's Health 2014, 6:537-545

Published Date: 23 May 2014

Denosumab, a RANK ligand inhibitor, for the management of bone loss in cancer patients

Yee AJ, Raje NS

Clinical Interventions in Aging 2012, 7:331-338

Published Date: 3 September 2012

A triple negative breast cancer: what it is not!

Katakkar SB

Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy 2012, 4:21-23

Published Date: 24 February 2012

How to reduce your cancer risk: mechanisms and myths

Nahleh Z, Bhatti NS, Mal M

International Journal of General Medicine 2011, 4:277-287

Published Date: 8 April 2011

Capecitabine in the management of colorectal cancer

Hirsch BR, Zafar SY

Cancer Management and Research 2011, 3:79-89

Published Date: 24 March 2011