ArticleBMC geriatrics2024
Frailty assessment in geriatric trauma patients: comparing the predictive value of the full and a condensed version of the Fried frailty phenotype.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 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.
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
backgroundFrailty is associated with multiple negative outcomes in geriatric trauma patients. Simultaneously, frailty assessment including physical measurements for weakness (grip strength) and slowness (gait speed) poses challenges in this vulnerable patient group. We aimed to compare the full 5-component Fried Frailty Phenotype (fFP) and a condensed model (cFP) without physical measurements, with regard to predicting hospital length of stay (LOS) and discharge disposition (DD).
methodsProspective cohort study in patients aged 70 years and older at a level I trauma center undergoing frailty assessment by 5-component fFP (fatigue, low activity level, weight loss, weakness, and slowness). For the cFP, only fatigue, low activity level and weight loss were included. Co-primary outcomes were LOS and DD.
resultsIn 233 of 366 patients, information on all 5 frailty components was available (mean age 81.0 years [SD 6.7], 57.8% women) and included in our comparative analysis. Frailty prevalence was 25.1% and 3.1% by fFP and cFP, respectively. LOS did not differ significantly between frail and non-frail patients, neither using the fFP (p = .245) nor the cFP (p = .97). By the fFP, frail patients were 94% less likely to be discharged home independently (OR 0.06; 95% CI 0.007-0.50, p = .0097), while using cFP, none of the frail patients were discharged home independently.
conclusionThe fFP appears superior in identifying frail trauma patients and predicting their discharge destination compared with the condensed version. LOS in this vulnerable patient group did not differ by either frailty phenotype even if compared with those identified as non-frail.
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.