Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32964152›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2020

Comparison of geriatric assessment tools for frailty among community elderly.

Naparat Sukkriang, Chuchard Punsawad

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. [PAPPS update on older people 2024].Atencion primaria · 2024
    Guideline
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Application of Pragmatic Criteria to Assessments of Frailty and Physical Function Among People With HIV.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A 'COMMON SENSE' approach to geriatric patients in clinical practice.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2025
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Naparat SukkriangSchool of Medicine, Walailak University, Nakhon Si Thammarat, 80160 Thailand.
Chuchard PunsawadSchool of Medicine, Walailak University, Nakhon Si Thammarat, 80160 Thailand.
Walailak University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrailty is an important condition in elderly individuals because it increases disability, morbidity, and mortality. The definition frailty from the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) criteria is used worldwide and defined as fulfilling 3 out of the 5 phenotypic criteria that indicate compromised energetics: weakness, slowness, low level of physical activity, self-reported exhaustion, and unintentional weight loss.

objectiveThis research aims to study the validity of 5 screening methods, e.g., Clinical Frailty Scale, simple FRAIL questionnaire, PRISMA-7 questionnaire, Time Up and Go Test (TUG), and Gérontopôle frailty screening tool (GFST), and compare those results with the definition of frailty by using the CHS criteria for screening frailty.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study. The sample was 214 elderly individuals, aged ≥60 years, and living in the community. We used 5 screening tests and the Fried phenotype (CHS criteria) as a reference standard. Analysis of the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR+, LR-, and accuracy of each screening was compared with the Fried phenotype (CHS criteria).

resultsThe prevalence of frailty of elderly individuals in the community was 11.7% when using the Fried phenotype (CHS criteria). The Clinical Frailty Scale has sensitivity 56%, specificity 98.41%, PPV 82.35%, NPV 94.42%, LR+ 35.28, LR- 0.45, and accuracy 93.46%. The simple FRAIL questionnaire has sensitivity 88%, specificity 85.71%, PPV 44.90%, NPV 98.18%, LR+ 6.61, LR- 0.14, and accuracy 85.98%. The PRISMA-7 questionnaire has sensitivity 76%, specificity 86.24%, PPV 42.22%, NPV 96.45%, LR+ 5.52, LR- 0.28, and accuracy 85.05%. TUG has sensitivity 72%, specificity 82.54%, PPV 35.29%, NPV 95.71%, LR+ 4.12, LR- 0.34, and accuracy 81.31%. The GFST has sensitivity 88%, specificity 83.56%, PPV 41.51%, NPV 98.14%, LR+ 5.37, LR- 0.14, and accuracy 84.11%.

conclusionsThe simple FRAIL questionnaire and GFST have the highest sensitivity compared with the CHS criteria. All screening tests in this study have an accuracy of more than 80% compared with the CHS criteria.

Indexed as

DiagnosticsElderlyFrailtyGeriatric assessmentHealth promotionInternal medicineMedicinePublic healthScreening tools

Identifiers

PMID32964152
PMCPMC7490815
OpenAlexW3086177299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.