Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41114041›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

Scaling up frailty: psychometric validation of the functional limitations and geriatric syndromes frailty questionnaire-a new tool for uniformly classifying vulnerable hospital patients.

Bruno Bernardini, Rosa Pedale, Paola Arosio, Federico Piccioni, Stefano Mancin, Francesco Reggiani, Giovanna Cerina, Sara Ghirmai, Carla Corsini, Riccardo Levi and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Bruno BernardiniNeuro-Center, Neuro-Rehabilitation Unit, Department of Rehabilitation, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Rosa PedaleInternal Medicine-Nephrology and Dialysis Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Paola ArosioHospitalist Service, Department of Internal Medicine, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Federico PiccioniAnesthesia Unit 1, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Stefano MancinCancer-Center, Clinical Nutrition Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Francesco ReggianiInternal Medicine-Nephrology and Dialysis Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Giovanna CerinaNeuro-Center, Neuro-Rehabilitation Unit, Department of Rehabilitation, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Sara GhirmaiNeuro-Center, Neuro-Rehabilitation Unit, Department of Rehabilitation, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Carla CorsiniNeuro-Center, Neuro-Rehabilitation Unit, Department of Rehabilitation, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Riccardo LeviDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
Maria Vittoria FantacciDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Laura TabarrettiPhysiotherapy Service, Neuro-Rehabilitation Unit, Department of Rehabilitation, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Giulia GorettiDepartment of Quality Management, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Rodolfo HurleDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Comprehensive psychometric validation is essential to obtain a common metric for reliable diagnostic and prognostic decision-making in frailty. In this study, we used a single-factor approach to derive and psychometrically validate a standardized frailty measure from 23 reflective items (eight functional limitations and 15 geriatric syndromes) from a new, multidomain, questionnaire. We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and item response theory (IRT) to achieve this goal. Methods: This single-centre, cross-sectional study included a convenience sample of 900 community-dwelling patients (median age: 73.4 years; IQR: 67.0-81.6; 59.7% male) undergoing elective surgery ( Results: The CFA validated the single-factor solution for 16 of the 23 items in the questionnaire and confirmed the good internal consistency of the construct. IRT analyses showed that the 16 items of the Functional Limitation and Geriatric Syndrome Frailty Questionnaire (FLIGS-FQ-16) have good discriminatory power, satisfactory threshold parameters, and equal function for men and women. The FLIGS-FQ-16 total score provides reliable information on the severity of frailty, ranging from 0.18 standard deviations below the population mean ("not frail") to 2.7 standard deviations above the population mean ("severely frail"). Applying the standardized FLIGS-FQ-16 threshold scores to our sample, we found an overall prevalence of frailty of 40.9%, with a significant difference between acute patients (75.3%) and elective patients (20.8%, Conclusion: The five functional limitations and 11 geriatric syndromes of the FLIGS-FQ-16 aggregate into a robust single-factor construct with adequate psychometric properties that uniformly measure frailty up to the most severe levels. In addition to serving as a screening tool, the FLIGS-FQ-16 is useful for making individualized decisions and developing personalized treatment plans in perioperative medicine and the management of hospitalised older adults because it is based on treatable risk factors.

Indexed as

confirmatory factor analysisfrailtyintegrated care pathwaysitem response theorypatient care planningpsychometric

Identifiers

PMID41114041
PMCPMC12531211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.