ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2024
Comparison of two different frailty screening scales for predicting mortality due to all causes in older inpatients.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study examines the relationship between two frailty screening tools and 90-day all-cause mortality in geriatric inpatients.
methodsThe study included patients aged ≥60 years who were admitted to the geriatrics unit of a university hospital between June 2021 and August 2022 and whose mortality status and duration of hospitalization data were obtained from the Health Ministry System. During hospitalization, the patients were screened using two different frailty scales: the Simpler Modified Fried Frailty Scale (sMFS) and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Patients scoring ≥5 on the CFS and ≥3 on the sMFS were considered frail.
resultsA total of 84 participants with a mean age of 78.3±7.6 years were included in this study, of which 36.9% were male. Of the total, 60.7% and 89.3% were considered frail according to the CFS and sMFS, respectively, and the prevalence of all-cause mortality within 90 days was 19%. A univariate analysis using the Kaplan-Meier survival method revealed CFS scores to be statistically significantly related to 90-day all-cause mortality (p<0.001), while sMFS scores were not found to be statistically significant (p=0.849). Furthermore, a statistically significant relationship was identified between CFS score and all-cause mortality in multivariate analysis with Cox regression analysis [(p<0.001), hazard ratio (HR): 3.078; (95% confidence interval: 1.746-5.425)].
conclusionAn evaluation of frailty in hospitalized older adults using two different scales revealed the CFS to be superior to the sMFS in predicting all-cause mortality within 90 days.
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.