ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2026
Identifying frailty in acutely hospitalised patients with hip fracture: are the clinical frailty scale and irish hip fracture database frailty index comparable for predicting adverse outcomes?
Article in European geriatric medicine, 2026. 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.
- Beyond specialty silos: geriatrics as a core competency for all physicians in an aging Europe.European geriatric medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFrail older adults are at increased risk of adverse outcomes after hip fracture. We compared the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and the Irish Hip Fracture Database Frailty Index (IHFD FI) in predicting hospital outcomes.
methodsA secondary analysis of national clinical audit data from two trauma units was conducted. The CFS and IHFD FI were derived from routinely collected data. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the predictive value of age, sex, ASA grade, plus either frailty tool for the following outcomes: delirium (positive 4AT and/or clinical diagnosis), inpatient mortality, prolonged length of stay (LOS ≥ 30 days) and discharge home within 14 days. Predictive performance was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC).
resultsThe study included 1,388 patients discharged between 1st January 2022 and 31st December 2023 (mean age 80.0, 68.4% female). Delirium occurred in 39.1%, inpatient mortality in 5.2%, prolonged LOS in 22.2% and 33.6% were discharged home within 14 days. CFS data were available for 84.4% and IHFD FI for 86.5%. When added to age, sex and ASA, the CFS outperformed the IHFD FI for predicting delirium (AUC 0.816 vs. 0.790), while the IHFD FI was better for mortality (AUC 0.778 vs. 0.744). Both tools performed similarly for prolonged LOS and discharge home.
conclusionBoth the CFS and IHFD FI were predictive of outcomes. However, the CFS demonstrated superior predictive value for delirium during admission. Prospective collection of the CFS is recommended to enhance the identification of patients at risk of delirium and to support timely clinical interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40603831What 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.