SynthesisThe Journal of frailty & aging2025
A systematic review of assessment tools for cognitive frailty: Use, psychometric properties, and clinical utility.
Synthesis in The Journal of frailty & aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence and associated factors of cognitive frailty in older adults with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Social and clinical frailty indices in aging mice: a comparative analysis of longitudinal and cross-sectional designs.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026Article
- Immunosenescence and susceptibility to respiratory viruses: a state-of-the-art review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Review
- Four-Limb Coordinated Training and Neuroplasticity in Older Adults with Cognitive Frailty: Mechanisms and Clinical Evidence.Clinical interventions in aging · 2026Review
- Linking Motor and Cognitive Decline in Aging: Gait Variability and Working Memory as Early Markers of Frailty.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe concept of 'cognitive frailty' (CF) was first developed by an international consensus group in 2013 and defined as evidence of both physical frailty and cognitive impairment without a clinical diagnosis of AD or another dementia. CF has been associated with adverse health outcomes and early identification is vital. Difficulty in the assessment of CF however is the lack of a diagnostic gold standard.
objectivesThis review aimed to identify assessment tools used to diagnose cognitive impairment in the diagnosis of cognitive frailty, their psychometric qualities and clinical utility. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsSix databases were searched between 2013-2024. Studies were eligible if they reported a method of defining cognitive frailty, named the assessment tools, and stated cutoff values used to define cognitive impairment.
resultsIn the 116 included studies, large heterogeneity was found in the tools utilised, and cutoff scores applied, to diagnose cognitive impairment in the diagnosis of cognitive frailty. This review has demonstrated that diagnosis of CF relies predominantly on the use of three cognitive assessment tools (Mini Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Clinical Dementia Rating) from a total of 22 different tools identified in the literature. For assessment of physical frailty, 11 different tools were identified, with the Fried Frailty Index and FRAIL Scale predominantly utilised. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The variation in the tools used to identify the diagnosis of CF means there is inconsistency in reporting, potentially impacting both the understanding of the prevalence, and the appropriate direction of intervention strategies.
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.