Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33897831›Full record

ReviewInterventional cardiology (London, England)2021

Frailty Scores and Their Utility in Older Patients with Cardiovascular Disease.

Kenneth Jordan Ng Cheong Chung, Chris Wilkinson, Murugapathy Veerasamy, Vijay Kunadian

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Interventional cardiology (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors.

Kenneth Jordan Ng Cheong ChungTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Chris WilkinsonTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Murugapathy VeerasamyLeeds General Infirmary, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Leeds, UK.
Vijay KunadianTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation CS/15/7/31679
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The world's population is ageing, resulting in more people with frailty receiving treatment for cardiovascular disease (CVD). The emergence of novel interventions, such as transcatheter aortic valve implantation, has also increased the proportion of older patients being treated in later stages of life. This increasing population burden makes the assessment of frailty of utmost importance, especially in patients with CVD. Despite a growing body of evidence on the association between frailty and CVD, there is no consensus on the optimal frailty assessment tool for use in clinical settings. Previous studies have shown limited concordance between validated frailty instruments. This review evaluates the evidence on the utility of frailty assessment tools in patients with CVD, and the effect of frailty on different outcomes measured.

Indexed as

cardiovascular diseaseCHDFrailty assessmentinterventional cardiologyolder patientsvalvular heart disease

Identifiers

PMID33897831
PMCPMC8054346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.