Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36056441›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2022

Systematic review of the utility of the frailty index and frailty phenotype to predict all-cause mortality in older people.

Dani J Kim, M Sofia Massa, Caroline M Potter, Robert Clarke, Derrick A Bennett

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Performance-Based and Self-Reported Frailty in Older Adults with or Without Fibromyalgia.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Biomarkers and Clinical Evaluation in the Detection of Frailty.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

5 authors.

Dani J KimCTSU, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Big Data Institute, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
M Sofia Massa *CTSU, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Big Data Institute, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Caroline M PotterHealth Services Research Unit (HSRU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Robert Clarke *CTSU, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Big Data Institute, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. Robert.clarke@ndph.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9802-8241
Derrick A Bennett *CTSU, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Big Data Institute, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH/1996001/9454Department of HealthMedical Research Council MC_PC_17228Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent guidelines for healthcare of community-dwelling older people advocate screening for frailty to predict adverse health outcomes, but there is no consensus on the optimum instrument to use in such settings. The objective of this systematic review of population studies was to compare the ability of the frailty index (FI) and frailty phenotype (FP) instruments to predict all-cause mortality in older people.

methodsStudies published before 27 July 2022 were identified using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL databases. The eligibility criteria were population-based prospective studies of community-dwelling older adults (aged 65 years or older) and evaluation of both the FI and FP for prediction of all-cause mortality. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network's Methodology checklist was used to assess study quality. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curves (AUC) were compared, and the proportions of included studies that achieved acceptable discriminatory power (AUC>0.7) were calculated for each frailty instrument. The results were stratified by the use of continuous or categorical formats of each instrument. The review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA and SWiM guidelines.

resultsAmong 8 studies (range: 909 to 7713 participants), both FI and FP had comparable predictive power for all-cause mortality. The AUC values ranged from 0.66 to 0.84 for FI continuous, 0.60 to 0.80 for FI categorical, 0.63 to 0.80 for FP continuous and 0.57 to 0.79 for FP categorical. The proportion of studies achieving acceptable discriminatory power were 75%, 50%, 63%, and 50%, respectively. The predictive ability of each frailty instrument was unaltered by the number of included items.

conclusionsDespite differences in their content, both the FI and FP instruments had modest but comparable ability to predict all-cause mortality. The use of continuous rather than categorical formats in either instrument enhanced their ability to predict all-cause mortality.

Indexed as

FrailtyAgedFrail ElderlyGeriatric AssessmentHumansPhenotypeProspective StudiesAll-cause mortalityDiscriminationFrailtyFrailty indexFrailty phenotypePredictive ability

Identifiers

PMID36056441
PMCPMC9438224

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.