Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38070914›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Frailty Assessment in Vascular OUtpatients Review (FAVOUR) protocol: single-centre prospective cohort study comparing feasibility and prognostic value of commonly used frailty assessment tools.

Silje Alvsaaker Welsh, Keith Hussey, Julie Brittenden, Douglas J Orr, Terry Quinn

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06040658 (Frailty Assessment in Vascular OUtpatients Review), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT06040658 unknown statusnot on this map

Frailty Assessment in Vascular OUtpatients Review (FAVOUR Trial) - Comparing Feasibility and Prognostic Value of Commonly Used Assessments

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of GlasgowRan2023 to 2024Enrolled150ConditionsFrailty, Frail Elderly Syndrome, SurgeryArmsFrailty assessment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Silje Alvsaaker WelshCollege of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK silje.welsh3@nhs.scot.ORCID 0000-0001-9471-7165
Keith HusseyDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Julie BrittendenCollege of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Douglas J OrrCollege of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Terry QuinnCollege of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFrailty has consistently demonstrated associations with poorer healthcare outcomes. Vascular guidelines have recognised the importance of frailty assessment. However, an abundance of frailty tools and a lack of prospective studies confirming suitability of routine frailty assessment in clinical practice has delayed the uptake of these guidelines. The Frailty Assessment in Vascular OUtpatients Review study speaks to this evidence gap. The primary aim is to assess feasibility of implementing routine frailty assessment in a reproducible outpatient setting. Secondary objectives include comparing prognostic values and interuser agreement across five frailty assessment tools. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-centre prospective cohort study of feasibility is conducted in a rapid-referral vascular surgery clinic, serving a population of 2 million. Adults with capacity (>18 years), attending a clinic for any reason, are eligible for inclusion. Five assessments are completed by patient (Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Frail NonDisabled Questionnaire), clinician (CFS, Healthcare Improvement Scotland FRAIL tool and 'Initial Clinical Evaluation') and researcher (11-item modified Frailty Index). Consistent with feasibility objectives, outcome measures include recruitment rates, frailty assessment completion rates, time-to-complete assessments and interuser variability. Electronic follow-up at 30 days and 1 year will assess home-time and mortality as prognostic indicators. Patients treated surgically/endovascularly will undergo additional 30-day and 1-year postoperative follow-up, outcome measures include: surgical procedure, mortality, complications (according to Clavien-Dindo Classification), length of stay, readmission rates, non-home discharge, home-time, higher social care requirements on discharge and amputation-free survival. Prognostic value will be compared by area under receiver operating characteristic curves. Continuous outcome variables will be analysed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Interuser agreement will be compared by percentage agreement in Cohen's kappa coefficient.  ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is sponsored by National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde (R&IUGN23CE014). London-Riverside REC (23/PR/0062) granted ethical approval. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed vascular surgery and geriatric medicine themed journals and presentation at similar scientific conferences. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06040658. Stage of study: pre-results.

Indexed as

FrailtyAdultAgedFeasibility StudiesFrail ElderlyGeriatric AssessmentHumansOutpatientsPrognosisProspective StudiesState MedicineAgedAgingSurveys and QuestionnairesVASCULAR SURGERY

Identifiers

PMID38070914
PMCPMC10729052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.