Talk:Comorbidity

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does "comorbidity" simply mean the presence of more than one disease / condition OR does "comorbidity" imply that the diseases / conditions are more likely to occur together than would be the case if the causes are independent? [It simply means the presence of more than one disease or condition at the same time, as in the example given below of a diabetic who suffers a spinal cord injury.] Is there an implication that one "causes" (or shares a common cause) with the other? [No]

Is the answer different for medicine versus psychiatry? [No]

What determines which condition is primary and which is secondary / tertiary?

For example, if a person suffers from depression and glaucoma and is seen by a psychiatrist, then would depression be "primary" and glaucoma secondary / comorbid? Would an opthamologist reverse this? What about a GP?

I'm assuming that these conditions occur relatively independently, but would serve as a good example (i.e., be of special interest) because almost(?) all antidepressants are contraindicated for those with glaucoma.

The presence of depression and heart disease (if I recall correctly) are correlated. Are they therefore "comorbid" (if present in the same person)? [They are comorbidities if present in the same patient at the same time regardless of whether they are "correlated." For example, diabetes is a significant comorbidity for patients with spinal injuries even though the diabetes is not directly related to the injury. It is "related" only in that 1) both are now present at same time & 2) the diabetes will be aggravated by the effects of the injury.]

The definition in the article needs to distinguish between comorbidities, which are pre-existing secondary conditions, & complications, which arise as a result of the primary disease or injury.

Can we expand this to include the use of this word outside of medicine? futurebird 21:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any use of this word outside of medicine or psychology? Wcoole (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not finding any use of the word comorbidity outside of medicine or psychology. Venistrus (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You must admit "co-morbid" sounds rather morbid to the layman... Jidanni 06:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're implying a title change, maybe something less morbid will redirect here but that's what it's called so changing the title would be unencyclopedic. JordanZed 14:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should sound morbid: the whole point is morbidity (which means disease, not dying). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In recent years I have heard the term cormorbid more commonly used to refer to people who have both a mental health diagnosis and alcohol or other drug issues, as opposed to people who have mental health and intellectual disability who have been referred to as having dual-diagnosis. I am unsure if this is part of a regional lexicon or more widely used. I personally find it a more useful definition as most people with chronic mental illness seem to have more than one diagnosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.3.127 (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the value of having 2 definitions, for Trans-syndromal comorbidity & Trans-nosological comorbidity, with the exact same definition.

This seems like a paste-o, but I don't know either word well enough to sort out which one has the correct definition or to correct the other one.

If I'm mistaken and both phrases have the exact same meaning, I would love to see a reference that explains why there are 2 technical terms that are exact synonyms. Wcoole (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's meant to say the following - but it might be the other way around - the whole article could do with rewriting in a less complex manner by someone who can translate out of technical jargon.

• Trans-syndromal comorbidity: coexistence, in a single patient, of two and/or more syndromes, NOT pathogenetically related to each other.
• Trans-nosological comorbidity: coexistence, in a single patient, of two and/or more syndromes, pathogenetically related to each other.

EdwardLane (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone every re-writes this, please also change "two and/or more". Makes no sense.

The definition given is: to indicate a medical condition existing simultaneously but independently with another condition in a patient (this is the older and more "correct" definition) Yet there is a section Causes of comorbidity; no how can you reconcile "independently", with

Anatomic proximity of diseased organs

Singular pathogenetic mechanism of a number of diseases

Terminable cause-effect relation between the diseases

One disease resulting from complications of another

The whole article reads like a (poorly written) textbook for medical students, not like an encyclopedic entry, like someone threw together pieces of different sources, without much insight or a clear overview. 84.197.190.98 (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Written while sleep deprived, so not sure if it's valid.. ;-) 84.197.190.98 (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's valid. If you hadn't said "badly written," I would have. At first, the article seems to emulate the style of a textbook, but as you read more closely, the deficiencies start throbbing. I'm surprised the article hasn't been flagged; so far, it's just us, meekly whining. Aboctok (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is self-contradictory in the very definition of comorbidity: is it Presence and effects, or just effects?

The lead says that it's the "presence of one or more additional disorders... or the effect of such..." which sounds right to me. But the body says:

In medicine, comorbidity describes the effect of all other diseases an individual patient might have other than the primary disease of interest.

Which is it? This difference needs to be resolved. Mathglot (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph is worded too uh.. complicated, imo. I read it 5 times and I still dont get it. Especially the psychiatry integration piece, i wanted to know more about that, but couldnt figure it out. 04:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Sileet (talk)

In psychiatric diagnoses it has been argued in part that this "'use of imprecise language may lead to correspondingly imprecise thinking', [and] this usage of the term 'comorbidity' should probably be avoided."

Are they worried about the psychiatrists succumbing to the sloppiness of their own thinking, or that using this language in front of their clientele is unwise, because a fair percentage of this population "extremizes" to begin with?

Asking for a friend. — MaxEnt 21:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Asollers, Ftaylor4 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Cament1 (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the second to last paragraph in the research section, it discusses how specialists other than psychologists and physicians tend to overlook comorbidity. Some of the wording in this paragraph sounds persuasive and biased. If the paragraph is kept, it might benefit from some rewording to be more neutral and some references to back up the information.

~~~~ Cemilybowler (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]