ArticleMedicine2026
Assessment tools for frailty in elderly adults: A scoping review.
Article in Medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs global population aging intensifies, health issues among the elderly are receiving increasing attention. Frailty, a syndrome characterized by age-related decline across multiple systems, has become a central concern in geriatric medicine. Early screening and assessment of frailty are crucial, yet practitioners lack a systematic and comprehensive understanding of assessment tools due to constraints imposed by cultural contexts, healthcare resources, and population characteristics.
methodsA scoping review was conducted following the 5-stage methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. A systematic search was performed using a combination of subject terms and free terms across 4 databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. The search period covered from the establishment of each database to June 27, 2024, with gray literature excluded. Two authors independently screened the literature based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and discrepancies were resolved by team consensus. Data from included studies were extracted into tables, and results were collated through descriptive overview and thematic synthesis. The review report adhered to the standards outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Scrutiny Reviews guidelines. The study protocol was officially filed with the Open Science Framework.
resultsA total of 18,141 documents were retrieved, and 27 studies involving 14 types of frailty assessment tools were ultimately included. Analysis revealed a wide variety of assessment tools currently available, with significant differences in the design of assessment dimensions and usage scenarios between tools. The Fried Frailty Phenotype and Tilburg Frailty Indicator are 2 commonly used assessment tools. The selection of accurate and effective frailty screening tools by assessors is crucial for improving the identification of frail individuals and facilitating intervention.
conclusionWhen selecting frailty assessment tools for elderly adults, it is essential to comprehensively consider factors such as the demographic characteristics of the target population, the resources available within the clinical setting, and the performance of the tools themselves. Currently, there remains a lack of globally standardized criteria for frailty assessment. Future research should focus on integrating existing evidence to develop multidimensional assessment tools tailored to diverse elderly adult populations, thereby enabling dynamic evaluation.
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.