Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40319473›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of frailty & aging2025

Frailty indices based on routinely collected data: a scoping review.

Schenelle Dayna Dlima, Danielle Harris, Abodunrin Quadri Aminu, Alex Hall, Chris Todd, Emma Rlc Vardy

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

6 authors.

Schenelle Dayna DlimaSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research, Applied Research Collaboration - Greater Manchester, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research Policy Research Unit in Healthy Ageing, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Electronic address: schenelle.dlima@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk.
Danielle HarrisSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research, Applied Research Collaboration - Greater Manchester, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research Policy Research Unit in Healthy Ageing, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Electronic address: danielle.harris@manchester.ac.uk.
Abodunrin Quadri AminuSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research Policy Research Unit in Healthy Ageing, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Electronic address: abodunrin.aminu@manchester.ac.uk.
Alex HallSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research Policy Research Unit in Healthy Ageing, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Electronic address: alex.hall@manchester.ac.uk.
Chris ToddSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research, Applied Research Collaboration - Greater Manchester, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research Policy Research Unit in Healthy Ageing, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK; Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. Electronic address: chris.todd@manchester.ac.uk.
Emma Rlc VardySchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research, Applied Research Collaboration - Greater Manchester, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK; Oldham Care Organisation, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Rochdale Road, Oldham, UK. Electronic address: emma.vardy@nca.nhs.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Frail ElderlyFrailtyGeriatric AssessmentAgedHumansAdministrative dataDeficit accumulationElectronic health recordsFrailtyFrailty indexRoutine dataRoutinely collected data

Identifiers

PMID40319473
PMCPMC12101985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.