ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2023
Identification of frailty in primary care: accuracy of electronically derived measures.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Assessment on Days 1-14 for the Characterization of Traumatic Brain Injury: Recommendations from the 2024 NINDS Traumatic Brain Injury Classification and Nomenclature Initiative Clinical/Symptoms Working Group.Journal of neurotrauma · 2025Review
- Real-World Implementation of PRISMA-7 and Clinical Frailty Scale for Frailty Identification and Integrated Care Activation: A Cross-Sectional Study in Northern Italian Primary Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Not All Frailty Assessments Are Created Equal: Comparability of Electronic Health Data-Based Frailty Assessments in Assessing Older People in Residential Care.Biological research for nursing · 2024Article
- Limited incremental predictive value of the frailty index and other vulnerability measures from routine care data for mortality risk prediction in older patients with COVID-19 in primary care.BMC primary care · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRoutinely collected clinical data based on electronic medical records could be used to define frailty.
aimTo estimate the ability of four potential frailty measures that use electronic medical record data to identify older patients who were frail according to their GP. DESIGN AND
settingThis retrospective cohort study used data from 36 GP practices in the Dutch PHARMO Data Network.
methodThe measures were the Dutch Polypharmacy Index, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Chronic Disease Score (CDS), and Frailty Index. GPs' clinical judgement of patients' frailty status was considered the reference standard. Performance of the measures was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Analyses were done in the total population and stratified by age and sex.
resultsOf 31 511 patients aged ≥65 years, 3735 (11.9%) patients were classified as frail by their GP. The CCI showed the highest AUC (0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.78 to 0.80), followed by the CDS (0.69, 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.70). Overall, the measures showed poorer performance in males and females aged ≥85 years than younger age groups (AUC 0.55-0.58 in females and 0.57-0.60 in males).
conclusionThis study showed that of four frailty measures based on electronic medical records in primary care only the CCI had an acceptable performance to assess frailty compared with frailty assessments done by professionals. In the youngest age groups diagnostic performance was acceptable for all measures. However, performance declined with older age and was least accurate in the oldest age group, thereby limiting the use in patients of most interest.
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.