Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Background Comorbidity-a condition that co-exists with a primary illness-is common among older persons with heart failure and can complicate the overall management of this population. Objectives To determine the relationship between advancing age and the prevalence and patterns of comorbidity among older persons with heart failure. Design Retrospective longitudinal cohort study Participants A total of 201,130 Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure stratified into three age strata in 2001: 66-75, 76-85, and 86+ years, and followed over 5 years. Measurements (1) Prevalence of 19 conditions as identified by the Chronic Conditions Warehouse from Medicare claims data, characterized as concordant (related to heart failure) or discordant (unrelated to heart failure), and (2) overall comorbidity burden, defined as count of conditions. Results The median number of comorbidities rose from four (IQR: 2-5) to five (IQR: 4-7) among the young-old, and from 4 (IQR: 3-6) to 6 (IQR: 5-8) among the middle-old and oldest-old between 2001 and 2006. In 2001, the majority of concordant conditions were more prevalent among the youngest than oldest beneficiaries (e.g., diabetes 46.2% vs 26.9%; kidney disease 21.8% vs 18.4%), while the majority of discordant conditions were more prevalent among the oldest-old than youngest-old beneficiaries (e.g., dementia 39.6% vs 9.9%; hip fracture 9.5% vs 1.9%). Discordant conditions increased in prevalence faster among the oldest than youngest beneficiaries (e.g., dementia 13% points versus 9% points). Conclusion Among older Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure, there is a higher overall burden of comorbidity and greater prevalence of discordant comorbidity among the oldest old. Comorbidity prevalence increases over time, with discordant comorbidity increasing at the fastest rate among the oldest old. This comorbidity burden highlights the challenge of effectively treating heart failure while simultaneously managing co-existing and unrelated conditions.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Ahluwalia, S. C., Gross, C. P., Chaudhry, S. I., Leo-Summers, L., Van Ness, P. H., & Fried, T. R. (2011). Change in comorbidity prevalence with advancing age among persons with heart failure. Journal of general internal medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1725-6

Vancouver

Ahluwalia SC, Gross CP, Chaudhry SI, Leo-Summers L, Van Ness PH, Fried TR. Change in comorbidity prevalence with advancing age among persons with heart failure. Journal of general internal medicine. 2011. doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1725-6. PMID: 21573881.

BibTeX

@article{ahluwalia2011-21573881,
  author  = {Ahluwalia, S. C. and Gross, C. P. and Chaudhry, S. I. and Leo-Summers, L. and Van Ness, P. H. and Fried, T. R.},
  title   = {{Change in comorbidity prevalence with advancing age among persons with heart failure}},
  journal = {Journal of general internal medicine},
  year    = {2011},
  doi     = {10.1007/s11606-011-1725-6},
  pmid    = {21573881},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1725-6}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 67/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 4 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 39 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 67 of 100. Total 67 of 100.39 of the 58 points we could judge = 67 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of general internal medicine)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A cohort study following people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2011 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 4 / 4 201,130 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 21573881)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 39 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100.
Total 67 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Related studies in Digital health tools

Also tagged “deaths”

109 studies in the library carry the topic tag “deaths”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 109 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →