ArticleBMC geriatrics2019
Description of frail older people profiles according to four screening tools applied in primary care settings: a cross sectional analysis.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk Profiles in Hospitalized Adults Based on Functional Capacity, Pressure Injury Risk, and Fall Risk: A Cluster and Multiple Correspondence Analysis.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2026Observational
- Medication Use by Older Adults with Frailty: A Scoping Review.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A Clustering-Based Approach to Functional and Biomechanical Parameters Recorded with a Pair of Smart Eyeglasses in Older Adults in Order to Determine Physical Performance Groups.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Global frailty screening tools: Review and application of frailty screening tools from 2001 to 2023.Intractable & rare diseases research · 2024Review
- Physical Interventions Restore Physical Frailty and the Expression of CXCL-10 and IL-1β Inflammatory Biomarkers in Old Individuals and Mice.Biomolecules · 2024Article
- Association Between Timed Up-and-Go Test and Future Changes in the Frailty Status in a Longitudinal Study of Japanese Community-Dwelling Older Adults.Clinical interventions in aging · 2023Article
- Frailty as a Predictor of Adverse Outcomes among Spanish Community-Dwelling Older Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Multimorbidity, Trauma Exposure, and Frailty of Older Adults in the Community.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Chronic kidney disease in the context of multimorbidity patterns: the role of physical performance : The screening for CKD among older people across Europe (SCOPE) study.BMC geriatrics · 2020Observational
- Clinical and functional patient characteristics predict medical needs in older patients at risk of functional decline.BMC geriatrics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegarding the health care of older populations, WHO recommends shifting from disease-driven attention models towards a personalized, integrated and continuous care aimed to the maintenance and enhancement of functional capacities. Impairments in the construct of functional intrinsic capacity have been understood as the condition of frailty or vulnerability. No consensus has been yet reached regarding which tools are the most suitable for screening this kind of patients in primary care settings. Tools based on the measurement of functional performance such as Timed up and go test (TUG), Short Physical Performance battery (SPPB), self-completed questionnaires like Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) and clinical judgement, as the Gerontopole Frailty Scale (GFS) may be adequate. The objective of this work is to describe and compare characteristics of community-dwelling individuals identified as vulnerable or frail by four tools applied in primary care settings.
methodsCross sectional analysis developed in primary care services in two regions of Spain. Community-dwelling independent individuals aged 70 or more willing to participate were recruited and data was collected via face-to-face interviews. Frailty was assessed by TUG, SPPB, TFI and GFST. Also socio-demographic characteristics, lifestyle habits and health status data (comorbidities, polypharmacy, self-perceived health), were collected. Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and cluster analysis were used to identify groups of individuals with similar characteristics.
resultsEight hundred sixty-five individuals were recruited, 53% women, with a mean age of 78 years. Four clusters of participants emerge. Cluster 1 (N = 263) contained patients categorized as robust by most of the studied tools, whereas clusters 2 (N = 199), 3 (N = 183) and 4 (N = 220) grouped patients classified as frail or vulnerable by at least one of the tools. Significant differences were found between clusters.
conclusionsThe assessed tools identify different profiles of patients according to their theoretical construct of frailty. There is a group of patients that are identified by TUG and SPPB but not by GFS or TFI. These tools may be useful in primary care settings for the implementation of a function- driven clinical care of older patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.