Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34922490›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2021

How frail is frail? A systematic scoping review and synthesis of high impact studies.

E H Gordon, N Reid, I S Khetani, R E Hubbard

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
–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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. High frailty index scores predict mortality and changes in blood-based biomarkers in aging female mice.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Frailty and hospital outcomes among patients with neurological disorders.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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.

E H GordonCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Building 33, Princess Alexandra Hospital, 199 Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia. e.gordon@uq.edu.au.
N ReidCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Building 33, Princess Alexandra Hospital, 199 Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.
I S KhetaniPrincess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.
R E HubbardCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Building 33, Princess Alexandra Hospital, 199 Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsWhile the frailty index (FI) is a continuous variable, an FI score of 0.25 has construct and predictive validity to categorise community-dwelling older adults as frail or non-frail. Our study aimed to explore which FI categories (FI scores and labels) were being used in high impact studies of adults across different care settings and why these categories were being chosen by study authors.

methodsFor this systematic scoping review, Medline, Cochrane and EMBASE databases were searched for studies that measured and categorised an FI. Of 1314 articles screened, 303 met the eligibility criteria (community: N = 205; residential aged care: N = 24; acute care: N = 74). For each setting, the 10 studies with the highest field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) were identified and data, including FI scores and labels and justification provided, were extracted and analysed.

resultsFI scores used to distinguish frail and non-frail participants varied from 0.12 to 0.45 with 0.21 and 0.25 used most frequently. Additional categories such as mildly, moderately and severely frail were defined inconsistently. The rationale for selecting particular FI scores and labels were reported in most studies, but were not always relevant.

conclusionsHigh impact studies vary in the way they categorise the FI and while there is some evidence in the community-dweller literature, FI categories have not been well validated in acute and residential aged care. For the time being, in those settings, the FI should be reported as a continuous variable wherever possible. It is important to continue working towards defining frailty categories as variability in FI categorisation impacts the ability to synthesise results and to translate findings into clinical practice.

Indexed as

Frail ElderlyFrailtyAgedGeriatric AssessmentHumansIndependent LivingRisk FactorsDeficit accumulationFrailtyFrailty index

Identifiers

PMID34922490
PMCPMC8684089

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.