ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026
Comparison of diagnostic characteristics of four frailty screening tools in maintenance hemodialysis patients.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA variety of frailty assessment tools are used internationally, and there is variation in the selection of frailty assessment tools for patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (MHD). The most suitable tool for this population remains unclear. This study compared the validity of four frailty assessment tools-the Fried Phenotype, FRAIL Scale, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and Tilburg Frailty Index (T)-among MHD patients. The aim is to provide a reference for healthcare professionals selecting appropriate tools.
methodsA convenience sample of 385 patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis at two hemodialysis centers in Sichuan, China, from January to June 2025 was selected as the study population. All patients were assessed for frailty severity using four instruments. To minimize inclusion bias, the "leave-one-out" composite index (CI) was employed as the reference standard. Kappa statistics and McNemar's test were used to evaluate agreement between each tool and its corresponding CI. Diagnostic performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specicity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy. Decision curve analysis (DCA) evaluated clinical utility.
resultsThe Fried Phenotype demonstrated the strongest agreement with its CI (Kappa = 0.789, P < 0.001), indicating excellent concordance and no signicant marginal heterogeneity (McNemar's P = 1.000). The CFS also showed good agreement with its CI (Kappa = 0.716, P < 0.001) without signicant marginal heterogeneity (McNemar's P = 0.074). In contrast, while the FRAIL and T showed moderate agreement with their respective CIs (Kappa = 0.705 and 0.537; both P < 0.001), McNemar's test indicated signicant marginal heterogeneity for both (P < 0.001). The AUC was highest for the Fried Phenotype (0.90), followed by CFS (0.85), T (0.84), and FRAIL (0.82). The Fried Phenotype achieved the best balance between sensitivity (93%) and specicity (86%). Decision curve analysis conrmed its superior net benet across most clinical threshold probabilities.
conclusionThe Fried Phenotype demonstrated the highest validity and diagnostic accuracy for frailty screening in MHD patients when benchmarked against a robust "leave-one-out" composite standard. The CFS also performed well with good agreement and discriminative ability. The FRAIL scale showed high sensitivity but lower specicity, while the T exhibited high specicity but poor sensitivity. Tool selection should be guided by clinical purpose-whether for screening, conrmation, or balanced assessment-to optimize frailty management in MHD patients and improve clinical outcomes.
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.