ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Rapid clinical identification of vulnerable older adults in acute and emergency care: narrative review of short geriatric screening tools.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Older adults presenting to emergency departments or acute wards are at increased risk of functional decline, delirium, falls, prolonged hospital stay, and early mortality. Early recognition of vulnerability is crucial for timely preventive interventions, yet specific geriatric assessment is often not performed at admission due to time limitations. Aim: To provide a clinically focused synthesis of short geriatric screening tools and present a practical two-step model linking early screening with targeted clinical action. Methods: This narrative review summarizes brief screening instruments that can be completed within minutes and are suitable for routine use. A targeted literature review identified tools used and evaluated available evidence on predictive accuracy, feasibility, and clinical integration. Results: Rapid tools such as ISAR, TRST, PRISMA-7, and APOP allow early identification of patients at risk of functional decline, readmission, or short-term mortality. Multidomain instruments, including HARP, SHERPA, and ISAR-HP, provide broader prognostic information, supporting discharge planning and targeted follow-up. Predictive accuracy is generally moderate, with the area under the curve (AUC) typically between 0.60 and 0.70. Clinical impact depends on embedding screening into routine workflows and linking results to actionable interventions such as early mobilization, cognitive assessment, medication review, or referral to geriatric specialists. Clinical integration seems to require a tiered, two-step approach: rapid screening upon admission, followed by a comprehensive multidomain assessment on the ward. Conclusion: Short geriatric screening tools are essential in acute care. A two-step approach appears to be a practical and clinically reasonable strategy for optimizing early detection and linking screening to targeted interventions. However, further research is needed to validate its effectiveness and define the optimal implementation strategy.
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.