ArticleBMC nephrology2023
A clinical frailty scale obtained from MDT discussion performs poorly in assessing frailty in haemodialysis recipients.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03071107 (Frailty Intervention Trial in End-Stage Patients on Dialysis), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Frailty Intervention Trial in End-Stage Patients on Dialysis: A Feasibility Study
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Frailty in Focus: A Scoping Review of Frailty Instruments from the Kidney Disease Aging Research Collaborative.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2026Article
- Frailty Assessment Tools in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Kidney medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a commonly utilised frailty screening tool that has been associated with hospitalisation and mortality in haemodialysis recipients, but is subject to heterogenous methodologies including subjective clinician opinion. The aims of this study were to (i) examine the accuracy of a subjective, multidisciplinary assessment of CFS at haemodialysis Quality Assurance (QA) meetings (CFS-MDT), compared with a standard CFS score via clinical interview, and (ii) ascertain the associations of these scores with hospitalisation and mortality.
methodsWe performed a prospective cohort study of prevalent haemodialysis recipients linked to national datasets for outcomes including mortality and hospitalisation. Frailty was assessed using the CFS after structured clinical interview. The CFS-MDT was derived from consensus at haemodialysis QA meetings, involving dialysis nurses, dietitians, and nephrologists.
results453 participants were followed-up for a median of 685 days (IQR 544-812), during which there were 96 (21.2%) deaths and 1136 hospitalisations shared between 327 (72.1%) participants. Frailty was identified in 246 (54.3%) participants via CFS, but only 120 (26.5%) via CFS-MDT. There was weak correlation (Spearman Rho 0.485, P < 0.001) on raw frailty scores and minimal agreement (Cohen's κ = 0.274, P < 0.001) on categorisation of frail, vulnerable and robust between the CFS and CFS-MDT. Increasing frailty was associated with higher rates of hospitalisation for the CFS (IRR 1.26, 95% C.I. 1.17-1.36, P = 0.016) and CFS-MDT (IRR 1.10, 1.02-1.19, P = 0.02), but only the CFS-MDT was associated with nights spent in hospital (IRR 1.22, 95% C.I. 1.08-1.38, P = 0.001). Both scores were associated with mortality (CFS HR 1.31, 95% C.I. 1.09-1.57, P = 0.004; CFS-MDT HR 1.36, 95% C.I. 1.16-1.59, P < 0.001).
conclusionsAssessment of CFS is deeply affected by the underlying methodology, with the potential to profoundly affect decision-making. The CFS-MDT appears to be a weak alternative to conventional CFS. Standardisation of CFS use is of paramount importance in clinical and research practice in haemodialysis.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov : NCT03071107 registered 06/03/2017.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.