Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26624218›Full record

ArticleThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2015

Analysis of Rockwood et Al's Clinical Frailty Scale and Fried et Al's Frailty Phenotype as Predictors of Mortality and Other Clinical Outcomes in Older Patients Who Were Admitted to a Geriatric Ward.

M Ritt, C Schwarz, V Kronawitter, A Delinic, L C Bollheimer, K G Gassmann, C C Sieber

Registry-linked trialAbstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04717869 (Identifying Modifiable PAtient Centered Therapeutics Frailty), which is not on this map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04717869 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Identifying Modifiable PAtient Centered Therapeutics Frailty: An Observational Cohort Study

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of California, Los AngelesRan2023 to 2026Enrolled250ConditionsFrailty, SarcopeniaArmsUltrasound, Biomarker Analysis, Frailty Index
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Higher Admission Frailty Scores Predict Increased Mortality, Morbidity, and Healthcare Utilization in the Elderly Burn Population.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Beyond Chronological Age: Frailty and Multimorbidity Predict In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Frailty as a Prognostic Indicator in Intensive Care.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

M RittMartin Ritt, Department of Internal Medicine III (Medicine of Ageing), Geriatrics Centre Erlangen, Hospital of the Congregation of St. Francis Sisters of Vierzehnheiligen, Rathsbergerstrasse 57, 91054 Erlangen, Germany, Tel: +49-(0)-9131 822 3702, Fax: +49-(0)-9131 822 3703, Email: Martin.Ritt@waldkrankenhaus.de.
C Schwarz
V Kronawitter
A Delinic
L C Bollheimer
K G Gassmann
C C Sieber

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThere are few data regarding the accuracy of short frailty tools as predictors of mortality and other clinical outcomes of older patients admitted to a geriatric ward. We therefore analyzed the accuracy of Rockwood et al's Clinical Frailty Scale and an easy and quick to perform operationalization of Fried et al's frailty phenotype, as predictors of mortality and other clinical outcomes in our cohort of patients.

designProspective analysis with a follow-up period of 6 months. SETTING AND

participants307 patients who were 65 years of age or older were included in the study. The patients were assessed in terms of the two frailty measures during their stay in a geriatric ward.

resultsThe Clinical Frailty Scale and the frailty phenotype were both suitable for differentiating between patients who died due to any cause from those who survived during follow-up (primary outcome) (area under the ROC curves (AUC) values 0.867 (95% CI 0.807-0.926), p<0.001 and 0.754 (95% CI 0.688-0.821), p<0.001, respectively). Regarding the secondary outcomes: 1. unplanned admission to hospital and 2. a fall during follow-up, the Clinical Frailty Scale discriminated or tended to discriminate between patients to whom these criteria applied and those to whom they did not (AUC=0.569 (95% CI 0.502-0.636), p=0.046 and AUC=0.574 (95% CI 0.501-0.647), p=0.071, respectively). The frailty phenotype did not show such a differentiation when applied to secondary outcomes (AUC=0.500 (95% CI 0.432-0.568), p=0.994 and AUC=0.518 (95% CI 0.439-0.598), p=0.658, respectively).

conclusionsBoth short frailty instruments are suitable predictors of mortality in older patients who were admitted to a geriatric ward. The Clinical Frailty Scale, but not the frailty phenotype, predicted at least some of the secondary outcomes, i.e., the outcome unplanned admission to hospital during follow-up.

Indexed as

Frail ElderlyMortalityPhenotypeAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHospitalizationHospitalsHospital UnitsHumansMaleProspective StudiesROC CurveTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26624218
PMCPMC12877667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.