Observational studyEuropean geriatric medicine2025
Measuring frailty: a comparison of the cumulative deficit model of frailty in survey and routine data.
Observational study in European geriatric medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- A Multidomain Longitudinal Analysis of Frailty, Functional Limitation, Balance and Falls in Older Adults.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Age-adjusted leukocyte telomere length predicts long-term mortality in older patients discharged from acute care hospitals.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Trajectory of frailty among the older people in a community setting: A cohort study from the Shizuoka Kokuho Database.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2026Article
- Frailty index predicts the risk of 17 health outcomes in distinct ways: prospective findings from the Moli-sani Study.Age and ageing · 2026Article
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
purposeFrailty, a state of increased vulnerability to adverse health outcomes, impacts individuals and healthcare systems. The cumulative deficit model provides a flexible frailty measure but its application across diverse data remains underexplored. This study compares frailty indices derived from survey and routine data.
methodsFrailty indices in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum (N = 1,625,677) and the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) (N = 5190) were compared for adults aged 65 + in England. Deficits were categorised as "one-to-one", "one-to-many", and "one-to-none". Age-sex-standardised deficit prevalence, frailty distribution and associations with demographics were analysed using summary statistics and regression.
resultsMean frailty index scores were similar (CPRD: 0.13 ± 0.10; ELSA: 0.13 ± 0.12) but differences were observed in the capture of specific deficits. The majority of deficits had a "one-to-none" or "one-to-many" mapping. Among 14 comparable deficits, visual impairment, fractures and heart failure were more common in CPRD, while falls, sleep disturbance and arthritis were more frequent in ELSA. Severe frailty and greater fitness were more prevalent in ELSA than CPRD. Sex and age influenced frailty similarly in both datasets, with frailty index scores increasing more rapidly with age in CPRD.
conclusionDifferences in the number and types of deficits measured offset each other overall, supporting the cumulative deficit model's premise that including a sufficient range of deficits does not significantly alter population-level frailty measures. This interchangeability may alleviate concerns about deficit selection, supporting more flexible approaches to population frailty assessment across both survey and routine data.
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.