Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40142616›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025

Frailty in Geriatrics: A Critical Review with Content Analysis of Instruments, Overlapping Constructs, and Challenges in Diagnosis and Prognostic Precision.

José Fierro-Marrero, Álvaro Reina-Varona, Alba Paris-Alemany, Roy La Touche

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Endoscopic Papillectomy for Ampullary Tumors in Older Patients: Balancing Oncologic Benefit and Geriatric Risk.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

José Fierro-MarreroDepartment of Physiotherapy, Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28023 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9271-7521
Álvaro Reina-VaronaDepartment of Physiotherapy, Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28023 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8224-1737
Alba Paris-AlemanyMotion in Brains Research Group, Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28023 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6494-2900
Roy La ToucheDepartment of Physiotherapy, Centro Superior de Estudios Universitarios La Salle, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28023 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6379-6155

Funding

La Caixa Foundation LCF/BQ/DR22/11950015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Frailty is a key concept in geriatric care; yet its definition and assessment remain debated. Since the early 2000s, two main models have emerged: the Fried frailty phenotype, focusing on physical deficits, and the Mitnitski frailty index, which incorporates broader health factors. These divergent approaches have led to over 50 frailty instruments, reflecting the absence of a unified framework. This review explores the content, weighting, and scoring methods of frailty instruments, identifying potential concerns derived from this. This review exposes the overlap of frailty with other constructs including function, disability, morbidity, and sarcopenia. Many instruments lack content validity, and detect highly heterogeneous samples within and between scales, all labeled under the "frail" tag. This poses challenges to interpreting instrument responsiveness. In addition, frailty should not be considered a clinical entity with a unique etiology. This review discusses how the broad nature of frailty conflicts with modern paradigms of individualization and precision. They may be useful in primary care, but lack the specificity for secondary care evaluations. This article also discusses how the predictive validity of frailty should be interpreted with caution. Finally, we summarize our findings and propose a new definition of frailty, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the construct. The identified inconsistencies should serve as a guide for refining the concept of frailty, both in research and in its application to geriatric care.

Indexed as

construct assessmentcontent validitydisabilityfrailtygeriatricsinstrument developmentmorbidity

Identifiers

PMID40142616
PMCPMC11943423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.