Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29450049›Full record

ArticlePublic health reviews2016

Screening for frailty: older populations and older individuals.

Brigitte Santos-Eggimann, Nicolas Sirven

Registry-linked trialAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Public health reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05826314 (Impact of Boxing-based Training Program on Physical-functional Fitness, Cognitive Performance, and Risk of Falls in Community-dwelling Older Adults), which is not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT05826314 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Impact of Boxing-based Training Program on Physical-functional Fitness, Cognitive Performance, and Risk of Falls in Community-dwelling Older Adults

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversidade do PortoRan2023 to 2025Enrolled75ConditionsHealthy People ProgramsArmsBoxing training, Exercise
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Brigitte Santos-Eggimann1Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital and Faculty of Biology and Medicine, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nicolas Sirven2LIRAES, University of Paris Descartes, Sorbonne-Paris-Cité, 45 rue des Saints Pères, 75006 Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The concept of frailty as a health dimension in old age is recent and has its origin in the development of geriatric medicine. Initially an unformulated clinical intuition, it is now defined by a diminished physiological reserve of multiple organs that exposes older individuals to increased vulnerability to stressors and a higher risk of adverse outcomes. The operational definition of frailty, however, is still debated. From a diversity of models, two emerged in the early 2000s from epidemiological studies conducted in large population-based aging cohorts. The body of research emphasized prospective associations between a frailty phenotype and a range of adverse outcomes or between a frailty index measuring the accumulation of deficits and death. A few studies showed promising spontaneous remissions in the early stages of frailty, raising expectations for effective interventions. Transitions between frailty stages and effective interventions on frailty nevertheless remain two fields needing further investigation. More recently, these tools have been applied as screening instruments in clinical settings to guide individual decision-making and orient treatments. New questions are raised by the use of instruments developed to screen frailty in epidemiological research for assessing individual situations. Inquiring whether frailty screening is relevant opens a Pandora's box of doubts and debates. There are many reasons to screen for frailty both from a public health and a clinical perspective that are only exacerbated by the current demographic evolution. Open questions remain about the feasibility of frailty screening, the properties of screening tools, the relevance of an integration of socioeconomic dimensions into screening tools, and the effectiveness of interventions targeting frailty. Fifteen years after the publication of the Fried and Rockwood landmark papers proposing operational definitions of frailty, this article presents an overview of current perspectives and issues around frailty screening in populations and in individuals.

Indexed as

Clinical settingFrailFrailtyHospitalPrimary carePublic healthScreeningSurgery

Identifiers

PMID29450049
PMCPMC5810062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.