ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2020
A reliable and record-based frailty assessment method for older medical inpatients.
Article in European geriatric medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Frailty detection by healthcare professionals: a systematic review of the available English and French tools and their validation.European geriatric medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Development of a checklist to support management of older patients withBMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Prevalence of pre-frailty and frailty and their association with postoperative hospital days in older adults referred for elective orthopaedic surgery.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
- Preoperative Frailty Assessed by the Record-Based Multidimensional Prognostic Index Predicts 90-Day Days Alive and out of Hospital Following Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Frailty classification challenges in the emergency department: agreement and variability in clinical frailty scale scoring.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2026Article
- Frailty indices based on routinely collected data: a scoping review.The Journal of frailty & aging · 2025Article
- Frailty level at discharge predicts mortality in older patients with Clostridioides difficile more accurately than age or disease severity.European geriatric medicine · 2023Article
- Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Prognostication in Oncology, Dementia, Frailty, and Pulmonary Diseases.Journal of palliative medicine · 2021Article
- The challenge of the multifaceted prognosis in the older people and the Multidimensional Prognostic Index.European geriatric medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) including frailty assessment is considered the gold standard of assessment in geriatric patients. The Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) is a CGA-based bedside assessment tool. Older medical inpatients' medical records comprehensively describe the MPI-featured components. Consequently, MPI-based frailty assessment may be accomplished retrospectively. We found no previous studies concerning record-based MPI. We studied the reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy of a record-based MPI.
methodsThe study was designed as a fully crossed, prospective, and cross-sectional study. A total of 50 inpatients aged ≥ 75 years were included from two medical wards. Record-based MPI was assessed by two independent raters in patients who required personal assistance on a daily basis or had a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥ 1. In the same patients, a bedside MPI rating was performed. Inter-rater and inter-method reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated.
resultsEvaluating the inter-rater reproducibility; the mean difference was -0.02 points [95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.06 to 0.01, p = 0.20]. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.71. Evaluating inter-method reproducibility; the mean difference was -0.02 (95% CI - 0.04 to 0.01, p = 0.18); ICC = 0.83. Sensitivity was 100% and specificity 80%. The areas under the receiver operating curves (ROC) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.75-1.00) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.52-1.00).
conclusionThe record-based MPI rating method has an acceptable inter-rater reliability, good inter-method reliability, and high agreement as compared to the bedside-rated MPI. The diagnostic accuracy seems considerable. The record-based MPI seems useful in retrospective frailty assessment among older medical inpatients.
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.