ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Pilot Testing of Useful Tools' Validity for Frailty Assessment in Greece: Translated PRISMA-7 Tool, Modified Fried Criteria and Clinical Frailty Scale.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Colon Capsule Endoscopy-Measured Colonic Transit Time Is Associated with Frailty in Older Adults.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Development and validation of the Frailty Questionnaire-5 (FQ-5), a PRISMA-7-derived screening tool for frailty: a diagnostic accuracy study in primary care.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- 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
- Sex Bias in Frailty Screening: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of PRISMA-7 and the Clinical Frailty Scale in Primary Care.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparing the PRISMA-7 and a Modified Version (PRISMA-6) for Frailty Screening: Addressing Sex Bias in Community-Dwelling Older Adults.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Examining South Tyrol's Experience: Digital Health Adoption and Workforce Issues in Implementing Italy's Primary Care Reform Under Ministerial Decree No. 77/2022.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The importance of frailty in older people is getting constant recognition as an important aspect both in terms of public health, as well as at a personal level, for the appropriate management of an older person's health condition. This is reflected by the continuously increasing number of research studies carried out in several settings across different countries. Sometimes, this is very solid, but in other cases, there is a considerable gap in terms of accurate and well-grounded documentation of frailty status. This is the case in Greece, where we are missing clinically validated tools to approach frailty. We are missing frailty screening tools, such as, for instance, Program of Research on Integration of Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy 7 (PRISMA 7), the gold standard tool of Fried criteria, is somehow problematic since the question referring to physical activity originates from a questionnaire that has not been translated and validated, while Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) has been validated for translation but not for the capacity to detect frailty. The aim of this study is to validate these tools for their accuracy to detect frailty by using a measurable index of frailty, previously proposed for use in clinical studies: the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Seventy-four male and female participants (mean age 80.47 years SD = ±7.45 years, minimum-maximum age = 65-95) have been evaluated for their frailty status using different tools. We observed that the PRISMA 7 translation detects frailty only when one question is removed at a cut-off of ≥2 and indicates a sensitivity of 88.1% and specificity of 99.9% with a good correlation with SPPB measurements (
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.