Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36973658›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2023

Development and validation of a risk prediction model for frailty in patients with diabetes.

Fan Bu, Xiao-Hui Deng, Na-Ni Zhan, Hongtao Cheng, Zi-Lin Wang, Li Tang, Yu Zhao, Qi-Yuan Lyu

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fan Bu *School of Nursing, Jinan University, No. 601, West Huangpu Avenue, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Xiao-Hui Deng *School of Nursing, Jinan University, No. 601, West Huangpu Avenue, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Na-Ni Zhan *School of Nursing, Jinan University, No. 601, West Huangpu Avenue, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Hongtao Cheng *School of Nursing, Jinan University, No. 601, West Huangpu Avenue, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Zi-Lin WangSchool of Nursing, Jinan University, No. 601, West Huangpu Avenue, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Li TangSchool of Nursing, Jinan University, No. 601, West Huangpu Avenue, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Yu ZhaoSchool of Nursing, Jinan University, No. 601, West Huangpu Avenue, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Qi-Yuan LyuSchool of Nursing, Jinan University, No. 601, West Huangpu Avenue, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. yuanqlv@163.com.
Jinan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrailty is the third most common complication of diabetes after macrovascular and microvascular complications. The aim of this study was to develop a validated risk prediction model for frailty in patients with diabetes.

methodsThe research used data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), a dataset representative of the Chinese population. Twenty-five indicators, including socio-demographic variables, behavioral factors, health status, and mental health parameters, were analyzed in this study. The study cohort was randomly divided into a training set and a validation set at a ratio of 70 to 30%. LASSO regression analysis was used to screen the variables for the best predictors of the model based on a 10-fold cross-validation. The logistic regression model was applied to explore the associated factors of frailty in patients with diabetes. A nomogram was constructed to develop the prediction model. Calibration curves were applied to evaluate the accuracy of the nomogram model. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and decision curve analysis were conducted to assess predictive performance.

resultsOne thousand four hundred thirty-six patients with diabetes from the CHARLS database collected in 2013 (n = 793) and 2015 (n = 643) were included in the final analysis. A total of 145 (10.9%) had frailty symptoms. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that marital status, activities of daily living, waist circumference, cognitive function, grip strength, social activity, and depression as predictors of frailty in people with diabetes. These factors were used to construct the nomogram model, which showed good concordance and accuracy. The AUC values of the predictive model and the internal validation set were 0.912 (95%CI 0.887-0.937) and 0.881 (95% CI 0.829-0.934). Hosmer-Lemeshow test values were P = 0.824 and P = 0.608 (both > 0.05). Calibration curves showed significant agreement between the nomogram model and actual observations. ROC and DCA indicated that the nomogram had a good predictive performance.

conclusionsComprehensive nomogram constructed in this study was a promising and convenient tool to evaluate the risk of frailty in patients with diabetes, and contributed clinicians to screening the high-risk population.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusFrailtyActivities of Daily LivingAnthraquinonesHumansLongitudinal StudiesPyrazolesAnthraquinonesPyrazolesteloxantroneDiabetic patientsDiabeticsFrailtyPredictive model

Identifiers

PMID36973658
PMCPMC10045211
OpenAlexW4361001544

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read25
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.