ArticlePrimary health care research & development2025
Capturing factors associated with frailty using routinely collected electronic medical record data in British Columbia, Canada, primary care settings.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and testing of an electronic frailty index using Canadian electronic medical record data in primary care.BMC primary care · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic medical record (EMR) systems in primary care present an opportunity to address frailty, a significant health concern for older adults. Researchers in the UK used Read codes to develop a 36-factor electronic frailty index (eFI), which produces frailty scores for patients in primary care settings.
aimWe aimed to translate the 36-factor eFI to a Canadian context.
methodsWe used manual and automatic mapping to develop a coding set based on standardized terminologies used in Canada to reflect the 36 factors of the eFI. Manual mapping was completed independently by two coders, followed by group consensus among the research team. Automatic mapping was completed using Apelon TermWorks. We then used EMR data from the British Columbia Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network. We searched structured data fields related to diagnoses and reasons for patient visits to develop a list of free text terms associated with any of the 36 factors. RESULTS AND
conclusionsA total of 3768 terms were identified; 3021 were codes. A total of 747 free text terms were identified from 527,521 reviewed data entries. Of the 36 frailty factors, 24 were captured mostly by codes; 7 mostly by free text; and 4 approximately equally by codes and free text. Three key findings emerged from this study: (1) It is difficult to capture frailty using only standardized terminologies currently used in Canada and a combination of standardized codes and free text terms better captures the complexity of frailty; (2) EMRs in primary care can be better optimized; (3) Output from this study allows for the development of a frailty screening algorithm that could be implemented in primary care settings to improve individual and system level outcomes related to 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.