ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Electronic frailty index based on comprehensive geriatric assessment in primary care: feasibility, validity, and reliability.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- FI-CGA and eFI-CGA in Frailty Care: a Scoping Review.Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo aid frailty management in primary care we developed an electronic Frialty Index based on a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (eFI-CGA). Here we report the feasibility, validity, and reliability of the eFI-CGA when conducted in primary care.
methodsTo assay feasibility, we measured assessment completion rate and time required. We tested validity by analyzing the content and characteristics of the eFI-CGA, its associations with age and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and prediction of three-year adverse outcomes. Reliability was evaluated by having primary care providers and geriatricians independently assess patients at baseline and at six months, yielding inter- and intra-rater estimates, as well as validity compared with a reference standard.
resultsCommunity-dwelling older adults from 27 clinics were enrolled (n = 281; 65% females). The eFI-CGA showed a four-factor structure, including function/mobility, psychological/social, cognition, and physical/medical problems. The eFI-CGA and CFS scores were moderately correlated: r = 0.65 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.56 − 0.72). The age − eFI-CGA correlation (r) was modest (r = 0.22; CI: 0.10 − 0.34). Each 0.01 eFI-CGA increment was associated with a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 1.04 for three-year mortality (CI: 1.02 − 1.06). The eFI-CGA discriminated individuals with an adverse outcome with 75% accuracy (CI: 68%−82%). The eFI-CGA conducted by geriatricians and primary care providers showed comparable characteristics and predictive capacities. Inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were high: 0.91 (CI: 0.84 − 0.94) baseline) and 0.87 (CI: 0.80 − 0.92) follow-up. Intra-rater ICCs were excellent 0.95 (CI: 0.92 − 0.97) for geriatricians and 0.93 (CI: 0.89 − 0.96) for primary care providers.
conclusionsFrailty assessment using the eFI-CGA is feasible, valid, and reliable in primary care settings. Larger studies are needed to evaluate its generalizability.
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.