ArticleJAR life2026
Comparative performance of ICOPE Step 1 and fried frailty criteria in detecting frailty phenotypes: A cross-sectional study.
Article in JAR life, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Frailty represents a significant public health challenge among aging populations. Early and accurate detection is vital for implementing timely interventions that may delay or prevent functional deterioration. Among the available assessment tools, The Fried frailty phenotype is widely recognized as a reference framework for assessing frailty. In parallel, the WHO's ICOPE Step 1 has been developed as a tool to detect potential declines in intrinsic capacity. Considering its design and purpose, ICOPE Step 1 may be regarded as a feasible option for use as a screening tool in clinical and community settings; however, direct comparative analyses within the same population remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate the concordance between the ICOPE Step 1 tool and Fried criteria to inform and enhance frailty screening practices in both clinical and community-based settings. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 202 community-dwelling older adults aged ≥60 years (mean age 85.0 ± 4.5; 160 [79.2 %] females), categorized as non-frail, pre-frail, or frail based on Fried's frailty phenotype and the WHO ICOPE Step 1 screening tool. The diagnostic performance of the ICOPE tool was assessed in comparison to Fried's criteria by calculating sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: Compared to the reference Fried criteria, the ICOPE Step 1 tool identified a higher proportion of individuals as frail (63 % vs. 29 %) and fewer as robust (2 % vs. 18 %). Diagnostic performance analysis showed a sensitivity of 83.9 % and a specificity of 43.8 %, with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.639, indicating moderate discriminative ability. Conclusion: ICOPE Step 1 demonstrated high sensitivity as a rapid, community-based screening tool for identifying older adults at risk of frailty. While it cannot replace the diagnostic utility of the Fried phenotype due to its limited specificity, it serves as a valuable first-line instrument to guide further comprehensive geriatric assessment, particularly via ICOPE Step 2.
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.