ArticleInternal medicine journal2025
Subjective and objectives measures of frailty among adults with advanced chronic kidney disease: a cross-sectional analysis of clinician misclassification.
Article in Internal medicine journal, 2025. 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.
- Recommendations for the management of frailty in chronic kidney disease: a consensus report.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2026Review
- Association between the dietary index for gut microbiota and frailty: the mediating role of body mass index.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
Abstract
backgroundFrailty is a recognisable clinical measure of impaired physiological reserve and vulnerability to adverse outcomes that is validated among patients with kidney disease. Practice patterns reveal inconsistent use of objective frailty measures by nephrologists, with clinicians prioritising subjective clinical impressions, possibly risking misclassification and discrimination.
aimsThe aim of this study was to examine correlations between subjective and objective measures of frailty in a cohort of patients attending routine nephrologist review.
methodsEighty-nine participants attending scheduled review with their primary treating nephrologist (n = 6) were included in cross-sectional analysis. Measured frailty based on Fried phenotype and subjective clinician impression were assessed for congruence using Pearson's correlation analysis and ĸ statistic. Ordinal logistic regression examined patient demographics associated with perceived frailty. Misclassification was explored using descriptive statistics and contingency table analysis.
resultsFrailty and prefrailty were prevalent by both objective and subjective means of assessment with minimal correlation between clinician impression and measured Fried phenotype (r = 0.50, P = 0.00, ĸ = 0.25, P =& 0.00). Subjective clinician impression misclassified half of participants, influenced by surrogate frailty measures including female sex, comorbidity and reliance on a walking aid. Clinicians were equally likely to over-classify prefrailty as to under-recognise established frailty, with no evidence of systemic misclassification bias. Subjective clinican impression of frailty had a positive predictive value of 19.1% and a negative predictive value of 56.2%.
conclusionsNephrologists' reliance on subjective clinical impressions that overlook or misclassify prefrailty offers incomplete prognostic assessment and potentially misses opportunities for early intervention.
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.