ArticleThe Journal of frailty & aging2025
Frailty indices based on routinely collected data: a scoping review.
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Frailty and survival of patients with renal cell carcinoma: A meta-analysis.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2025Pooled it
- Frailty and oral health among middle-aged and older adults: findings from the English longitudinal study of ageing.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Frailty: from concept to clinical practice in urology.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Article
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
A frailty index (FI) is a frailty assessment tool calculated as the proportion of the number of health-related deficits an individual has to the total number of variables in the index. Routinely collected clinical and administrative data can be used as sources of deficits to automatically calculate FIs. This scoping review aimed to evaluate the current research landscape on routine data-based FIs. We searched seven databases to find literature published in 2013-2023. Main inclusion criteria were original research articles on FIs constructed from routine data, with deficits in at least two of the following categories: "symptoms/signs", "laboratory values", "diseases", "disabilities", and "others". From 7526 publications screened, 218 were included. Studies were primarily from North America (47.7 %), conducted in the community (35.3 %), and used routine data-based FIs for risk stratification (51.4 %). FIs were calculated using various routine data sources; however, most were initially developed and validated using hospital records. We noted geographical differences in study settings and routine data sources. We identified 611 unique deficits comprising these FIs. Most were either "diseases" (34.4 %) or "symptoms/signs" (32.1 %). Routine data-based FIs are feasible and valid risk stratification tools, but research is confined to high-income countries, their routine adoption is slow, and deficits comprising these FIs emphasise a reactive and overtly medical approach in addressing frailty. Future directions include exploring the feasibility and applicability of using routine databases for frailty assessment in lower- and middle-income countries, and leveraging non-clinical routine data through data linkages to proactively identify and manage frailty.
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.