ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2024
Comparison of three frailty measures for predicting hospitalization and mortality in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between pre-stroke frailty status and stroke risk and impact on outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1,660,328 participants.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2024Pooled it
- Risk prediction models for frailty in stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- Reply to: Frailty and ethics at the end of life: The importance of a comprehensive assessment.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have compared different measures of frailty for predicting adverse outcomes. It remains unknown which frailty measurement approach best predicts healthcare utilization such as hospitalization and mortality.
aimsThis study aims to compare three approaches to measuring frailty-grip strength, frailty phenotype, and frailty index-in predicting hospitalization and mortality among middle-aged and older Canadians.
methodsWe analyzed baseline and the first 3-year follow-up data for 30,097 participants aged 45 to 85 years from the comprehensive cohort of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA). Using separate logistic regression models adjusted for multimorbidity, age and biological sex, we predicted participants' risks for overnight hospitalization in the past 12 months and mortality, at the first 3-year follow-up, using each of the three frailty measurements at baseline. Model discrimination was assessed using Harrell's c-statistic and calibration assessed using calibration plots.
resultsThe predictive performance of all three measures of frailty were roughly similar when predicting overnight hospitalization and mortality risk among CLSA participants. Model discrimination measured using c-statistics ranged from 0.67 to 0.69 for hospitalization and 0.79 to 0.80 for mortality. All measures of frailty yielded strong model calibration. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionAll three measures of frailty had similar predictive performance. Discrimination was modest for predicting hospitalization and superior in predicting mortality. This likely reflects the objective nature of mortality as an outcome and the challenges in reducing the complex concept of healthcare utilization to a single variable such as any overnight hospitalization.
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.