Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33786557›Full record

ArticleThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2021

Comparison of Three Frailty Scales for Prediction of Adverse Outcomes among Older Adults: A Prospective Cohort Study.

J J Li, S Jiang, M L Zhu, X H Liu, X H Sun, S Q Zhao

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Comparative Analysis of Three Frailty Assessment Tools: A Cross-Sectional Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    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

6 authors.

J J LiXiao hong Liu, No. 1 Shuai fu yuan, Dong cheng District, Beijing, 100730, China, e-mail: xhliu41@sina.com, Xiaohong Sun, No. 1 Shuai fu yuan, Dong cheng District, Beijing, 100730, China, e-mail: sunxiaoh2010@126.com.
S Jiang
M L Zhu
X H Liu
X H Sun
S Q Zhao

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the ability of Frailty Phenotype (FP), FRAIL and Frailty Index (FI) to predict adverse outcomes.

designA prospective cohort study.

settingA senior community in Beijing, China.

participantsA total of 188 older adults aged 65 years or older (mean age 84.0 ± 4.4 years, 58.5% female). MEASUREMENTS: Frailty was evaluated by FP, FRAIL and FI. The agreement between scales was assessed by Cohen kappa coefficient. The predictive value of the three scales for adverse outcomes during one-year follow-up period were analyzed using decision curve analysis(DCA) and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis.

resultsFrailty ranged from 25% (FRAIL) to 42.6% (FI). The agreement between scales was moderate to good (Cohen's kappa coefficient 0.44~0.61). DCA showed though the curves of the scales overlapped across all relevant risk thresholds, clinical treating had a higher net benefit than "treat all" and "treat none" when risk of unplanned hospital visits ≥30%, risk of functional decline or falls ≥15%. The three scales had similar predictive value for unplanned hospital visits (area under ROC, AUC 0.63, 0.64 and 0.69). FRAIL and FI had similar predictive value for functional decline (AUC 0.63,0.65). FI had predictive value for falls (AUC 0.65).

conclusionsAll three scales showed clinical utility but FRAIL may be best in practice because it is simple. Multidimensional measures of frailty are better than unidimensional for prediction of adverse outcomes among older adults.

Indexed as

Adverse Outcome PathwaysAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFrail ElderlyFrailtyGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleProspective StudiesDecision curve analysisFRAILfrailty indexfrailty phenotypeolder adults

Identifiers

PMID33786557
PMCPMC12876687

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.