Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36384461›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2022

Frailty and solid-organ transplant candidates: a scoping review.

Jonathan Kao, Natasha Reid, Ruth E Hubbard, Ryan Homes, Leila Shafiee Hanjani, Ella Pearson, Benignus Logan, Shannon King, Sarah Fox, Emily H Gordon

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. The Path Forward: A Review on Enhanced Recovery After Cardiothoracic Transplantation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Exploration of the causality of frailty index on psoriasis: A Mendelian randomization study.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
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

10 authors.

Jonathan KaoPrincess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Queensland, Australia. Jonathan.kao@health.qld.gov.au.ORCID 0000-0002-2596-9139
Natasha ReidCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8528-9741
Ruth E HubbardPrincess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8688-5836
Ryan HomesSchool of Biomedical Science, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1978-782X
Leila Shafiee HanjaniCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7088-9739
Ella PearsonSchool of Biomedical Science, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3512-8595
Benignus LoganCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7673-4022
Shannon KingNorth Metropolitan Health Service, WA Health, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5481-4462
Sarah FoxCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1182-8386
Emily H GordonPrincess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9985-6404

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is currently no consensus as to a standardized tool for frailty measurement in any patient population. In the solid-organ transplantation population, routinely identifying and quantifying frailty in potential transplant candidates would support patients and the multidisciplinary team to make well-informed, individualized, management decisions. The aim of this scoping review was to synthesise the literature regarding frailty measurement in solid-organ transplant (SOT) candidates.

methodsA search of four databases (Cochrane, Pubmed, EMBASE and CINAHL) yielded 3124 studies. 101 studies (including heart, kidney, liver, and lung transplant candidate populations) met the inclusion criteria.

resultsWe found that studies used a wide range of frailty tools (N = 22), including four 'established' frailty tools. The most commonly used tools were the Fried Frailty Phenotype and the Liver Frailty Index. Frailty prevalence estimates for this middle-aged, predominantly male, population varied between 2.7% and 100%. In the SOT candidate population, frailty was found to be associated with a range of adverse outcomes, with most evidence for increased mortality (including post-transplant and wait-list mortality), post-operative complications and prolonged hospitalisation. There is currently insufficient data to compare the predictive validity of frailty tools in the SOT population.

conclusionOverall, there is great variability in the approach to frailty measurement in this population. Preferably, a validated frailty measurement tool would be incorporated into SOT eligibility assessments internationally with a view to facilitating comparisons between patient sub-groups and national and international transplant services with the ultimate goal of improved patient care.

Indexed as

FrailtyOrgan TransplantationFemaleHumansMalePostoperative ComplicationsPrevalenceWaiting ListsAdverse outcomeFrailFrailtySolid-organ transplant

Identifiers

PMID36384461
PMCPMC9667636

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.