Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41224315›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2025

Validation of the Clinical Frailty Scale for predicting 90-day mortality in hospitalised older adults screened as at risk of nearing the end of life in Queensland, Australia: a multisite observational study.

Robin Blythe, Nicole Marie White, Christine Brown, Ken Hillman, Adrian Gerard Barnett

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Observational
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

5 authors.

Robin BlytheProgramme in Health Services Research & Population Health, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore r.blythe@duke-nus.edu.sg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3643-4332
Nicole Marie WhiteAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health & Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9292-0773
Christine BrownAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health & Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia.
Ken HillmanThe Simpson Centre for Health Services Research,Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.
Adrian Gerard BarnettAustralian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health & Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6339-0374

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Clinical Frailty Scale is an ordinal scale from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill) commonly used to assess frailty in older patients. It is simple for clinicians to apply and can help identify patients who may benefit from discussions around end-of-life care. We externally validated the Scale to assess its performance for predicting 90-day mortality in a cohort of admitted older patients who had screened positive for being at risk of nearing the end of life.

methodsWe used data from a randomised controlled trial assessing a tailored feedback loop for reducing non-beneficial care. Our study included patients aged 75 and above admitted between May 2020 and June 2021 from 3 Australian hospitals. We assessed whether the Scale could be used in a frail population to identify patients who were at risk of short-term mortality. Predictive performance was assessed using the c-statistic, smoothed calibration curves and decision curves. Models were tested for coefficient stability.

resultsOur dataset contained 4639 patients and 956 deaths within 90 days. The Clinical Frailty Scale had a c-statistic of 0.62 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.64) or 0.63 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.65) by adding age and transforming the Scale using a cubic spline. Risks were underestimated without a non-linear transformation as scores of 8 and 9 had a higher risk that diverged from a linear association. The net benefit of using the tool was greatest between 5 and 8 on the Scale.

conclusionsThe utility of the Clinical Frailty Scale may be as a flag to encourage clinicians to become more comfortable with discussing ageing and death, rather than as a highly discriminating model to classify patients as high risk or low risk. Statistical uncertainty over mortality should not be a barrier to initiating end-of-life care discussions with frail older patients.

Indexed as

Frail ElderlyFrailtyGeriatric AssessmentTerminal CareAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleQueenslandRisk AssessmentFrailtyGERIATRIC MEDICINEPALLIATIVE CARESensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID41224315
PMCPMC12612731

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.