ArticleAge and ageing2024
A scoping review of the measurement and analysis of frailty in randomised controlled trials.
Article in Age and ageing, 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.
- Review
- Observational
- Does the frailty index applied to randomised controlled trials really measure frailty?Age and ageing · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a risk identification model for frailty in stroke survivors: new evidence from CHARLS.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Influence of Intraoperative Pain Management on Postoperative Delirium in Elderly Patients: A Prospective Single-Center Randomized Controlled Trial.Pain and therapy · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFrailty is of increasing interest in trials, either as a target of intervention, as an outcome or as a potential treatment modifier. However, frailty measurement is often highly variable. This scoping review assessed how frailty is quantified in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in what context and for what purposes.
methodsWe searched five electronic databases for RCTs in which frailty was measured among trial participants. We extracted data on intervention type, the frailty measure used and the purpose for which frailty was assessed. We then compared these data according to reasons for frailty assessment.
resultsWe identified 415 RCTs assessing frailty across a range of interventions. Frailty was used to define the target population (166 trials), as an outcome (156 trials), as an effect modifier examining interaction of frailty on treatment effect (61 trials), as a purely descriptive characteristic (42 trials) or as a prognostic marker examining the impact of frailty on future health outcome (78 trials). The trials used 28 different measures of frailty (plus 29 additional trial-specific measures). The frailty phenotype model was the most common overall (164 trials), for defining the target population (90/166 trials) and as an outcome (81/156 trials). The cumulative deficit model frailty index was also frequently used (102 trials) and was most common among trials assessing treatment effect modification (21/61 trials).
conclusionFrailty measurement in RCTs is highly variable. Understanding the properties of respective frailty measures and how these relate to frailty as encountered in clinical practice is a priority to ensure that trial findings can inform healthcare delivery for people living with frailty.
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.