Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36284266›Full record

ArticleBMC emergency medicine2022

A comparison between the clinical frailty scale and the hospital frailty risk score to risk stratify older people with emergency care needs.

Abdullah Alshibani, Tim Coats, Laia Maynou, Fiona Lecky, Jay Banerjee, Simon Conroy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. [Analysis of the concordance between theoretical and real stratification in patients living with HIV infection treated at a tertiary care hospital].Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2025
    Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Abdullah AlshibaniDepartment of Health Sciences, College of Life Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7HA, UK. aa1313@leicester.ac.uk.
Tim CoatsUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.
Laia MaynouDepartment of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Fiona LeckyCentre for Urgent and Emergency Care Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Jay BanerjeeDepartment of Health Sciences, College of Life Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7HA, UK.
Simon ConroyMRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing, University College London, London, UK.
University of Leicester · GBMRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing · GBPompeu Fabra University · ESUniversity Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOlder adults living with frailty who require treatment in hospitals are increasingly seen in the Emergency Departments (EDs). One quick and simple frailty assessment tool-the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS)-has been embedded in many EDs in the United Kingdom (UK). However, it carries time/training and cost burden and has significant missing data. The Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) can be automated and has the potential to reduce costs and increase data availability, but has not been tested for predictive accuracy in the ED. The aim of this study is to assess the correlation between and the ability of the CFS at the ED and HFRS to predict hospital-related outcomes.

methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study using data from Leicester Royal Infirmary hospital during the period from 01/10/2017 to 30/09/2019. We included individuals aged + 75 years as the HFRS has been only validated for this population. We assessed the correlation between the CFS and HFRS using Pearson's correlation coefficient for the continuous scores and weighted kappa scores for the categorised scores. We developed logistic regression models (unadjusted and adjusted) to estimate Odds Ratios (ORs) and Confidence Intervals (CIs), so we can assess the ability of the CFS and HFRS to predict 30-day mortality, Length of Stay (LOS) > 10 days, and 30-day readmission.

resultsTwelve thousand two hundred thirty seven individuals met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 84.6 years (SD 5.9) and 7,074 (57.8%) were females. Between the CFS and HFRS, the Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.36 and weighted kappa score was 0.15. When comparing the highest frailty categories to the lowest frailty category within each frailty score, the ORs for 30-day mortality, LOS > 10 days, and 30-day readmission using the CFS were 2.26, 1.36, and 1.64 and for the HFRS 2.16, 7.68, and 1.19.

conclusionThe CFS collected at the ED and the HFRS had low/slight agreement. Both frailty scores were shown to be predictors of adverse outcomes. More research is needed to assess the use of historic HFRS in the ED.

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesFrailtyAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHospitalsHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsCorrelationElderlyFrailtyGeriatricOutcomeUrgent Care

Identifiers

PMID36284266
PMCPMC9598033
OpenAlexW4307242034

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.