ArticleJournal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls2021
Comparing the Modified Frailty Index with conventional scores for prediction of cardiac resynchronization therapy response in patients with heart failure.
Article in Journal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sarcopenia index as a predictor of ventricular arrhythmia risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a longitudinal study.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to compare, Modified Frailty Index (mFI), EAARN (LVEF <22%, Atrial Fibrillation, Age ≥70 years, Renal function (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m
methodsIn this prospective, non-randomized, single-center, observational study we enrolled 93 patients receiving CRT from August 2016 to August 2019. Pre-implant scores were calculated, and patients were followed for six months. Performance of each score for prediction of CRT response (defined as ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume [LVESV]) and all-cause mortality was compared.
resultsOptimal CRT response was seen in seventy patients with nine deaths. All the three scores exhibited modest performance for prediction of CRT response and all-cause mortality with AUC ranging from 0.608 to 0.701. mFI has an additional benefit for prediction of prolonged post-procedure stay and 30-day rehospitalization events.
conclusionmFI, ScREEN and EAARN score can be used reliably for predicting all-cause mortality and response to CRT.
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.