ArticlePloS one2026
Developing and validating a frailty score based on patient-reported outcome 3 months after stroke: A Riksstroke-based study.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFrailty is common after stroke and linked to poor outcomes, but many measures are clinician-rated, time-consuming, and not suited to patient-reported data. To address these issues, we developed and validated a frailty score from the Swedish Stroke Register (Riksstroke) three-month follow-up questionnaire.
methodsWe analyzed responses from 19,470 stroke survivors to nine patient-reported items covering function, mood, fatigue, pain and general health, in the 2021-2022 Riksstroke questionnaire. Dimensionality was assessed with Mokken Scale Analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Item response theory (IRT) was used for score computation. Competing graded response IRT models (unidimensional, correlated-factor, bifactor) were compared, and measurement fairness was examined using differential item functioning (DIF) across age, sex, and education. Prognostic validity was tested with Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression for all-cause mortality.
resultsFrom the Mokken Scale Analysis, all items met scalability criteria. Factor analysis suggested two correlated interpretable facets (Physical Functioning; Well-being/Mental Health). A bifactor IRT model provided the best fit to the data, comprising a general frailty dimension while addressing the strong correlation between the facets. DIF was minimal for sex and education, with modest age-related effects. Higher frailty scores were associated with increased mortality in adjusted Cox models and Kaplan-Meier curves. Tools for computing frailty scores are available at https://github.com/joakimwallmark/frailty-irt-scores.
conclusionsA robust, fair, and prognostically meaningful frailty score can be derived from patient-reported items in Riksstroke. More broadly, the study demonstrates how routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures can be leveraged to build scalable frailty scores, offering efficient cost-effective tools for monitoring outcome and guiding quality improvement in stroke care.
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.