ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2024
Agreement and predictive value of the clinical frailty scale in hospitalized older patients.
Article in European geriatric medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- What can we learn from 68 000 clinical frailty scale scores? Evaluating the utility of frailty assessment in emergency departments.Age and ageing · 2025Article
- Goals of care discussions and treatment limitation decisions in European acute geriatric units: a one-day cross-sectional study.Age and ageing · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur objective was to perform an external validity study of the clinical frailty scale (CFS) classification tree by determining the agreement of the CFS when attributed by a senior geriatrician, a junior geriatrician, or using the classification tree. Additionally, we evaluated the predictive value of the CFS for 6-month mortality after admission to an acute geriatric unit.
methodsThis prospective study was conducted in two acute geriatric units in Belgium. The premorbid CFS was determined by a senior and a junior geriatrician based on clinical judgment within the first 72 h of admission. Another junior geriatrician, who did not have a treatment relationship with the patient, scored the CFS using the classification tree. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess agreement. A ROC curve and Cox regression model determined prognostic value.
resultsIn total, 97 patients were included (mean age 86 ± 5.2; 66% female). Agreement of the CFS, when determined by the senior geriatrician and the classification tree, was moderate (ICC 0.526, 95% CI [0.366-0.656]). This is similar to the agreement between the senior and junior geriatricians' CFS (ICC 0.643, 95% CI [0.510-0.746]). The AUC for 6-month mortality based on the CFS by respectively the classification tree, the senior and junior geriatrician was 0.719, 95% CI [0.592-0.846]; 0.774, 95% CI [0.673-0.875]; 0.774, 95% CI [0.665-0.882]. Cox regression analysis indicated that severe or very severe frailty was associated with a higher risk of mortality compared to mild or moderate frailty (hazard ratio respectively 6.274, 95% CI [2.613-15.062] by the classification tree; 3.476, 95% CI [1.531-7.888] by the senior geriatrician; 4.851, 95% CI [1.891-12.442] by the junior geriatrician).
conclusionInterrater agreement in CFS scoring on clinical judgment without Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment is moderate. The CFS classification tree can help standardize CFS scoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39088181What 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.