ArticleDrugs & aging2026
External Validation of a Community Pharmacy-Based Screening Tool for Frailty That Uses Routinely Collected Data.
Article in Drugs & 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFrailty increases the risk of medication-related harm in older adults, emphasising the importance of early detection of drug-related problems during medication reviews. A new frailty screening tool, using electronic pharmacy data on age, sex, preferential reimbursement of medical expenses, number of chronic medications and medication use, offers a practical solution for community pharmacists to identify this risk group.
objectiveIn this study, we aimed to externally validate this tool.
methodsFor this external validation, data of community-dwelling participants with available frailty status from the HISLink project were used. This database contains data from the national Health Interview Survey 2018, a cross-sectional population survey conducted by Sciensano, linked to health insurance data (i.e. claims data from the Belgian Compulsory Health Insurance, which includes records on reimbursed healthcare utilisation and medication, and level of reimbursement of medical expenses). The Health Interview Survey 2018 database also contains frailty status assessed using SHARE-FI, which was used to evaluate the frailty screening tool's model performance and predictive accuracy. Logistic recalibration was applied to account for differences in baseline risk and predictor effects, between the development and validation cohorts. A subgroup sensitivity analysis was conducted.
resultsOf the 2191 (mean age 74.4 ± 7.2 years, 53.5% female) participants, 20.7% were frail according to SHARE-FI. The screening tool detected 31.6% as frail. Discrimination was good with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.77 (95% confidence interval 0.74-0.79), sensitivity of 63.9% and specificity of 76.8% (positive predictive value 41.8% and negative predictive value 89.1%). Calibration was initially modest (Brier score of 0.17) but improved substantially after logistic recalibration (Brier score of 0.13). In the subgroup of individuals with polypharmacy, an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.68-0.76) was reported with sensitivity of 76.6% and specificity of 55.6% (positive predictive value 49.3%; negative predictive value 80.8%).
conclusionsThe frailty screening tool provides a valid and reliable method for identifying older adults at risk for being frail in the community pharmacy. Its previously observed good performance is confirmed through external validation using data from the HISLink project.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42295695What 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.