ArticleBMJ open2020
Retirement age and type as predictors of frailty: a retrospective cohort study of older businessmen.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a nomogram for identifying pre-frailty risk in middle-aged and elderly maintenance hemodialysis patients: a cross-sectional study.BMC nephrology · 2026Article
- Midlife cardiovascular health factors as predictors of retirement age, work-loss years, and years spent in retirement among older businessmen.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Frailty Risk Prediction Model among Older Adults: A Chinese Nation-Wide Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo study the association between retirement characteristics and frailty in a homogenous population of former business executives.
designCross-sectional cohort study using data from the Helsinki Businessmen Study.
settingHelsinki, Finland.
participants1324 Caucasian men, born in 1919-1934, who had worked as business executives and managers and of whom 95.9% had retired by the year 2000. Questions on age at and type of retirement, lifestyle and chronic conditions were embedded in questionnaires. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Frailty assessed according to a modified phenotype definition at mean age 73.3 years.
resultsMean age at retirement was 61.3 years (SD 4.3) and 37.1% had retired due to old age. The prevalence of frailty was lowest among men retiring at ages 66-67 years but increased among those who worked up to age 70 years or older. Compared with men who retired before age 55 years, those retiring at ages 58-69 years were at decreased risk of frailty in old age relative to non-frailty (adjusted ORs 0.07-0.29, p<0.05). Compared with men who transitioned into old age retirement, those who retired due to disability were at increased risk of prefrailty (adjusted OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.32) and frailty (adjusted OR 3.52, 95% CI 1.97 to 6.29), relative to non-frailty.
conclusionExiting working life early and continuing to be occupationally active until age 70 years and older were both associated with increased risk of frailty among the men. Promotion of longer work careers could, however, promote healthier ageing, as the lowest prevalence of frailty was observed in former business executives who retired at ages 66-67 years.
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.