ArticleSage open aging
Frailty in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: Comparisons Among Three Frailty Screening Tools in Predicting In-Hospital Adverse Events.
Article in Sage open aging. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aims of the study were to investigate the proportion of frailty among inpatients having Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) and to compare the prognostic value of three frailty screening methods in predicting in-hospital adverse events among the study population. Methods: This prospective, observational study design was conducted on older patients with ACS. Data was collected using a structured questionnaire on general characteristics (age, gender, comorbidities, body mass index) and medical records (admission diagnosis, ACS type, angiography results, treatment therapy, left ventrical ejection fraction, and length of hospital stay). Frailty was assessed using three frailty screening scales: Reported Edmonton Frail Scale (REFS), Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and Frail Scale (FS). Results: A total of 116 older patients, the mean age was 72.9 (SD: 6.2) years. Prevalence of frailty in older inpatients with ACS was 44.8%, 35.3%, and 32.7% according to REFS; CFS, and FS, respectively. In addition, 75.9% were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and the length of hospitalization was 6.3 (SD: 3.8) days. The AUC in the prognosis of net adverse clinical events (NACE) for patients with ACS was 0.74 (with REFS ≥ 7 points), 0.76 (with CFS ≥ 5 points), and 0.80 (with FS ≥ 2 points). Kappa values of 0.49, 0.57, and 0.47 were observed for REFS, CFS, and FS. Conclusion: This study compared three frailty screening tools in predicting in-hospital adverse events among Acute Coronary Syndrome. The Frail Scale showed the highest value to predict NACE and demonstrated its superiority over other frailty scales.
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.