ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2026
Frailty classification challenges in the emergency department: agreement and variability in clinical frailty scale scoring.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFrailty assessment in the emergency department (ED) is essential but challenging. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is widely used, although inter-rater variability has been reported across assessors and assessment methods.
aimsTo assess agreement between ED-assigned and retrospectively assigned CFS scores, and to explore characteristics associated with changes in frailty classification.
methodsWe included 500 patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted with suspected pneumonia to Haukeland University Hospital (2019–2023). CFS was initially scored by nurses in the ED and reassessed retrospectively by a geriatric-trained physician using chart review. The retrospective assessment had access to broader and more objective information, including formal documentation from care services on daily function. CFS scores were categorized as fit (1–3), prefrail (4) and frail (5–9). Agreement was measured by Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC).
resultsCFS scores changed numerically in 252 (50.4%) patients and frailty category in 144 (28.8%). Agreement was moderate to good (ICC 0.73; 95% CI 0.68–0.77; p < 0.001), with retrospective assessment yielding higher scores. Agreement was highest in frail (89.7%) and lowest in prefrail patients (44.8%). Recategorized patients were older, more comorbid, more often community-dwelling with greater care dependency, and had higher 1-year mortality. DISCUSSION: Real-time frailty assessments in the ED may underestimate frailty, particularly among patients who are community-dwelling, older, or have complex health conditions. Retrospective assessments, informed by objective documentation of functional needs, likely reflect baseline frailty more accurately.
conclusionsFrailty is often underestimated in the ED. Improved access to collateral information may improve assessment accuracy.
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.