In Reply We thank Mori et al for their insightful comments and interest in our article.1 The authors argue that although the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) is a powerful tool, the Elixhauser comorbidity index is of poor utility owing to overlap between preoperative comorbidities and postoperative complications.
While we acknowledge this widely accepted limitation of administrative claims databases, it is important to note that this is not limited to the Elixhauser comorbidity index alone. Among available tools, it remains one of the most valid indices used for administrative data. To our knowledge, there are currently no studies to investigate the validity of any of these scores specifically in the setting of cardiac surgery, although studies in other surgical specialties, like orthopedic surgery, endorse the superiority of the Elixhauser comorbidity index.2
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Dewan KC, Navale SM, Soltesz EG. Understanding Limitations of the National Inpatient Sample to Facilitate its Proper Use—Reply. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(9):882. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1173
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: