ArticleClinical kidney journal2024
Usefulness of the Clinical Frailty Scale in patients with end-stage kidney disease.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recommendations for the management of frailty in chronic kidney disease: a consensus report.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2026Review
- Ten tips for kidney biopsy in cancer patients.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Review
- Article
- Kidney replacement therapies in the older person: challenges to decide the best option.Clinical kidney journal · 2025Review
- Combining the clinical frailty scale with grip strength for the identification of frailty among end-stage kidney disease patients.Clinical kidney journal · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The frailty index (FI) is commonly used to estimate frailty in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a less time-consuming alternative. We aimed to determine the test performance of the CFS for pre-dialysis and dialysis patients and patients receiving conservative therapy from the Dialysis Centre Apeldoorn. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, pre-dialysis patients and patients receiving conservative therapy from the Dialysis Centre Apeldoorn were included and subjected to frailty assessment. Nephrologists not familiar with the CFS completed the frailty score after medical consultation. The sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) of the CFS were determined. The FI was used as the gold standard. Results: Included were 144 patients, of whom 60 (41.7%) were considered frail according to the FI. The mean age was 67.4 ± 13.5 years and 56 (38.9%) were female. The cut-off point of the CFS for 'vulnerable' (CFS ≥4) had a sensitivity of 63.3%, a specificity of 81.0% and an AUC of 0.72. The cut-off point of the CFS for 'frail' (CFS ≥5) had a sensitivity of 50.0%, a specificity of 91.7% and an AUC of 0.71. Conclusions: The CFS is a quick and easy-to-use tool for the determination of frailty in ESKD patients with a high prevalence of frailty. Nevertheless, the sensitivity of the CFS in the present study was considered too low to implement into daily clinical practice. The sensitivity might be increased by training nephrologists in the use of the CFS.
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.