Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37934359›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2023

Interrater reliability of the Clinical Frailty Scale in the anesthesia preadmission clinic.

Jennifer Reilly, Pragya Ajitsaria, Louise Buckley, Monique Magnusson, Jai Darvall

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Preoperative frailty assessment: just do it!Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2023
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer ReillyDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Alfred Hospital, 55 Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. jennifer.reilly@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7109-8493
Pragya AjitsariaDepartment of Anaesthesia, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Louise BuckleyDepartment of Anaesthesia, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Monique MagnussonDepartment of Anaesthesia, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Jai DarvallDepartment of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
John Hunter Hospital · AUThe Alfred Hospital · AUThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAs many as 30% of patients with frailty die, are discharged to a nursing home, or have a new disability after surgery. The 2010 United Kingdom National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death recommended that frailty assessment be developed and included in the routine risk assessment of older surgical patients. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a simple, clinically-assessed frailty measure; however, few studies have investigated interrater reliability of the CFS in the surgical setting. The objective of this study was to determine the interrater reliability of frailty classification between anesthesiologists and perioperative nurses.

methodsWe conducted a cohort study assessing interrater reliability of the CFS between perioperative nurses and anesthesiologists for elective surgical patients aged ≥ 65 yr, admitted to a large regional university-affiliated hospital in Australia between July 2020 and February 2021. Agreement was measured via Cohen's kappa.

resultsFrailty assessment was conducted on 238 patients with a median [interquartile range] age of 74 [70-80] yr. Agreement was perfect between nursing and medical staff for CFS scores in 112 (47%) patients, with a further 99 (42%) differing by only one point. Interrater kappa was 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.63 to 0.77; P < 0.001), suggesting good agreement between anesthesiologists and perioperative nurses.

conclusionThis study suggests that CFS assessment by either anesthesiologists or nursing staff is reliable across a population of patients from a range of surgical specialities, with an acceptable degree of agreement. The CFS measurement should be included in the normal preanesthesia clinic workflow.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaFrailtyAgedCohort StudiesFrail ElderlyGeriatric AssessmentHumansReproducibility of Resultsanesthesiafrailtyinterrater reliabilityrisksurgery

Identifiers

PMID37934359
PMCPMC10656316
OpenAlexW4388446762

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.