Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33167965›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2020

Comparison of two different frailty measurements and risk of hospitalisation or death from COVID-19: findings from UK Biobank.

Fanny Petermann-Rocha, Peter Hanlon, Stuart R Gray, Paul Welsh, Jason M R Gill, Hamish Foster, S Vittal Katikireddi, Donald Lyall, Daniel F Mackay, Catherine A O'Donnell and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Change in frailty among older COVID-19 survivors.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024
    Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  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

17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Fanny Petermann-RochaInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Peter HanlonInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Stuart R GrayBritish Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8TA, UK.
Paul WelshBritish Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8TA, UK.
Jason M R GillInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Hamish FosterInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
S Vittal KatikireddiInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Donald LyallInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Daniel F MackayInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Catherine A O'DonnellInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Naveed SattarBritish Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8TA, UK.
Barbara I NichollInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Jill P PellInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Bhautesh D JaniInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Frederick K HoInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Frances S MairInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Carlos Celis-MoralesInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. Carlos.Celis@glasgow.ac.uk.
University of Glasgow · GBBritish Heart Foundation · GB

Funding

ANID-Becas Chile 2018 72190067Medical Research Council MR/S021949/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrailty has been associated with worse prognosis following COVID-19 infection. While several studies have reported the association between frailty and COVID-19 mortality or length of hospital stay, there have been no community-based studies on the association between frailty and risk of severe infection. Considering that different definitions have been identified to assess frailty, this study aimed to compare the association between frailty and severe COVID-19 infection in UK Biobank using two frailty classifications: the frailty phenotype and the frailty index.

methodsA total of 383,845 UK Biobank participants recruited 2006-2010 in England (211,310 [55.1%] women, baseline age 37-73 years) were included. COVID-19 test data were provided by Public Health England (available up to 28 June 2020). An adapted version of the frailty phenotype derived by Fried et al. was used to define frailty phenotype (robust, pre-frail, or frail). A previously validated frailty index was derived from 49 self-reported questionnaire items related to health, disease and disability, and mental wellbeing (robust, mild frailty, and moderate/severe frailty). Both classifications were derived from baseline data (2006-2010). Poisson regression models with robust standard errors were used to analyse the associations between both frailty classifications and severe COVID-19 infection (resulting in hospital admission or death), adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors.

resultsOf UK Biobank participants included, 802 were admitted to hospital with and/or died from COVID19 (323 deaths and 479 hospitalisations). After analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, a higher risk of COVID-19 was observed for pre-frail (risk ratio (RR) 1.47 [95% CI 1.26; 1.71]) and frail (RR 2.66 [95% CI 2.04; 3.47]) individuals compared to those classified as robust using the frailty phenotype. Similar results were observed when the frailty index was used (RR mildly frail 1.46 [95% CI 1.26; 1.71] and RR moderate/severe frailty 2.43 [95% CI 1.91; 3.10]).

conclusionsFrailty was associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 infection resulting in hospital admission or death, irrespective of how it was measured and independent of sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. Public health strategies need to consider the additional risk that COVID-19 poses in individuals with frailty, including which additional preventive measures might be required.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBetacoronavirusBiological Specimen BanksCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19EnglandFemaleFrailtyHospitalizationHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOdds RatioPandemicsCoronavirusCOVID-19FrailtyRisk factors

Identifiers

PMID33167965
PMCPMC7652674
OpenAlexW3105113928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.