Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35592643›Full record

ArticleClinical interventions in aging2022

Validation of Abbreviated Form of the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI): The BRIEF-MPI Project.

Alberto Cella, Nicola Veronese, Carlo Custodero, Alberto Castagna, Lisa A Cammalleri, Walter M Capitano, Luisa Solimando, Luca Carruba, Carlo Sabbà, Giovanni Ruotolo and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. FI-CGA and eFI-CGA in Frailty Care: a Scoping Review.Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ · 2026
    Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

12 authors.

Alberto CellaDepartment of Geriatric Care, Orthogeriatrics and Rehabilitation, E.O. Ospedali Galliera, Genova, Italy.
Nicola VeroneseGeriatric Unit, Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Carlo CustoderoDepartment of Interdisciplinary Medicine, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari, Italy.
Alberto CastagnaGeriatrics Unit, "Pugliese Ciaccio" Hospital, Catanzaro, Italy.
Lisa A CammalleriDepartment of Geriatric Care, Orthogeriatrics and Rehabilitation, E.O. Ospedali Galliera, Genova, Italy.
Walter M CapitanoGeriatric Unit, Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Luisa SolimandoGeriatric Unit, Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Luca CarrubaGeriatric Unit, Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Carlo SabbàDepartment of Interdisciplinary Medicine, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari, Italy.
Giovanni RuotoloGeriatrics Unit, "Pugliese Ciaccio" Hospital, Catanzaro, Italy.
Mario BarbagalloGeriatric Unit, Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Alberto PilottoDepartment of Geriatric Care, Orthogeriatrics and Rehabilitation, E.O. Ospedali Galliera, Genova, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To screen multidimensional frailty in older people, using a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) tool such as the multidimensional prognostic index (MPI), is a public health priority. Unfortunately, the screening tools available are not able to capture multidimensional frailty. In this work, we aimed to evaluate in a population of hospitalized and ambulatory older patients, the agreement between an abbreviated form of the MPI (ie, BRIEF-MPI) and the standard/full version. Participants and Methods: All participants included in the study completed both versions of the MPI, brief and full, which share the following domains: 1) basic and 2) instrumental activities of daily living, 3) mobility/risk of pressure sores, 4) cognition, 5) nutrition, 6) comorbidity, 7) social and 8) number of medications. The agreement between the two instruments was reported using either the mean comparisons with a Results: The study sample included 110 participants (mean age=83.2 years, 51.8% women). The mean difference was statistically and clinically irrelevant (mean difference=0.01±0.10; p=0.27). The correlation between brief and full MPI versions was optimal (R=0.82, p<0.0001). Using the Bland-Altman methodology, we observed that only three participants over 110 (=2.73%) were outside the limits of agreement. The accuracy of BRIEF-MPI in predicting multidimensional frailty, as full MPI>0.66, was optimal (area under the curve=0.92, p<0.0001). A BRIEF-MPI value of 0.59 yielded the highest sensitivity and specificity in predicting multidimensional frailty. Conclusion: BRIEF-MPI had a good agreement with the full/standard version of the MPI, making this tool as ideal for the screening of multidimensional frailty in older people.

Indexed as

FrailtyActivities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overComorbidityFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansMalePrognosisagreementfrailtymultidimensional prognostic indexscreening

Identifiers

PMID35592643
PMCPMC9112183

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.