ArticlePloS one2025
Comparison of frailty instruments for predicting mortality and prolon ged hospitalization in acute coronary syndrome patients.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The predictive value of multidimensional frailty instruments for postoperative adverse outcomes in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the relative strengths of 3 frailty assessment instruments for predicting mortality and prolonged hospitalization in acute coronary syndrome patients.
designProspective cohort study.
settingAcute cardiac care units in New Zealand.
participants1174 patients >70 years of age hospitalized with an acute coronary syndrome.
interventionsThe Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) and Fried Criteria (Fried), were completed during hospital admission following an acute coronary syndrome when the patient was clinically stable. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality over the next ~5 years and hospitalization for >10 days in the next year determined from national administrative data.
resultsDuring median follow-up of 5.1 years there were 353 deaths. Harrell's C-statistic for mortality for EFS was 0.663, Fried 0.648 and CFS 0.640 (p<0.001 for all). C-statistics for hospitalization >10 days (n = 267, 22%) were EFS 0.649, Fried 0.628, and CFS 0.584 (p<0.001 for all). Associations between increase in frailty scores and mortality were graded including in patients not classified as frail. The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality, adjusted for age and sex, for patients with an EFS score ≥9 (n = 197) compared to ≤2 (n = 331) was 5.0 (95% CI: 3.4-7.4). In models which included the Euroscore II or GRACE risk scores the EFS improved risk discrimination for both mortality and prolonged hospitalization more than the CFS and Fried.
conclusionIn older patients assessed following an acute coronary syndrome the EFS discriminated the risk of all cause mortality and prolonged hospitalization better than the CFS and Fried tests, and improved risk discrimination when added to clinical risk scores.
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.