Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36353269›Full record

ArticleClinical interventions in aging2022

The Feasibility of Deriving the Electronic Frailty Index from Australian General Practice Records.

Ebony T Lewis, Margaret Williamson, Lou P Lewis, Danielle Ní Chróinín, Elsa Dent, Maree Ticehurst, Ruth Peters, Rona Macniven, Magnolia Cardona

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. FI-CGA and eFI-CGA in Frailty Care: a Scoping Review.Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Ebony T LewisSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine & Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Margaret WilliamsonSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine & Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8389-3611
Lou P LewisMatraville Medical Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Danielle Ní ChróinínDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7711-9718
Elsa DentTorrens University Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Maree TicehurstMatraville Medical Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ruth PetersSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Rona MacnivenSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine & Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Magnolia CardonaInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6499-2705
UNSW Sydney · AUBond University · AULiverpool Hospital · AURoyal Prince Alfred Hospital · AUTorrens University Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Frailty is a prevalent condition in older adults. Identification of frailty using an electronic Frailty Index (eFI) has been successfully implemented across general practices in the United Kingdom. However, in Australia, the eFI remains understudied. Therefore, we aimed to (i) examine the feasibility of deriving an eFI from Australian general practice records and (ii) describe the prevalence of frailty as measured by the eFI and the prevalence with socioeconomic status and geographic remoteness. Participants and Methods: This retrospective analysis included patients (≥70 years) attending any one of >700 general practices utilizing the Australian MedicineInsight data platform, 2017-2018. A 36-item eFI was derived using standard methodology, with frailty classified as mild (scores 0.13-0.24); moderate (0.25-0.36) or severe (≥0.37). Socioeconomic status (Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) index)) and geographic remoteness (Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGC) remoteness areas) were also examined. Results: In total, 79,251 patients (56% female) were included, mean age 80.0 years (SD 6.5); 37.4% (95% CI 37.0-37.7) were mildly frail, 16.7% (95% CI 16.4-16.9) moderately frail, 4.8% (95% CI 4.7-5.0) severely frail. Median eFI score was 0.14 (IQR 0.08 to 0.22); maximum eFI score was 0.69. Across all age groups, moderate and severe frailty was significantly more prevalent in females (P < 0.001). Frailty severity increased with increasing age (P < 0.001) and was strongly associated with socioeconomic disadvantage (P < 0.001) but not with geographic remoteness. Conclusion: Frailty was identifiable from routinely collected general practice data. Frailty was more prevalent in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, women and older patients and existed in all levels of remoteness. Routine implementation of an eFI could inform interventions to prevent or reduce frailty in all older adults, regardless of location.

Indexed as

FrailtyGeneral PracticeAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaElectronic Health RecordsElectronicsFeasibility StudiesFemaleFrail ElderlyGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleRetrospective Studiesagedelectronic health recordsfamily practicefrailtygeriatric assessmentprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID36353269
PMCPMC9639370
OpenAlexW4307986447

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.