ArticleThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2026
Is there agreement across diagnostic instruments in the identification of the impairment in intrinsic capacity later in life? A cross-sectional study with community-dwelling older adults.
Article in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare and investigate agreement across diagnostic instruments in detecting impairment in the domains of intrinsic capacity (IC).
designCross-sectional descriptive design. SETTING AND
participantsThe study was conducted with 205 community-dwelling older adults (ages 60-96; mean: 71.3 ± 7.9 years). MEASUREMENTS: IC was assessed across five domains, using multiple diagnostic instruments for each domain: cognition [Mini-Mental State Examination (education-adjusted versus raw score of 26 points) and a cognitive battery]; mobility (Short Physical Performance Battery, gait speed test, chair stand test, and Timed Up and Go test); vitality (Mini Nutritional Assessment, handgrip strength, body mass index, and self-reported unintentional weight loss); psychological well-being (Geriatric Depression Scale, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, and self-reported of mental health diagnosis or use of antidepressant or anxiolytic medications); and sensory function (whisper voice test, Snellen chart, and self-reported hearing or visual impairment). McNemar's test and Cochran's Q-test were used to compare the detection of impairment in IC domains. Cohen's Kappa and Fleiss' Kappa tests were used to measure the level of agreement across diagnostic instruments.
resultsDetection of impairment in each IC domain varied substantially across diagnostic instruments. Moderate agreement was found in the diagnostic instruments for mobility (K = 0.64) and hearing (K = 0.69; agreement = 88.8%).
conclusionsDiagnostic instruments substantially influence the detection of impairment on IC. Moderate agreement was found for mobility and hearing measures, underscoring the urgent need for harmonized assessment protocols and highlighting the critical impact of instrument selection on estimating the prevalence of impairment on IC.
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.