ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2026
Frailty in rheumatoid arthritis and the general population: a cross-sectional analysis of the Groningen Frailty Indicator and Fried criteria.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 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
Abstract
objectiveTo compare frailty prevalence and factors driving frailty between older adults with RA and controls, using two conceptually distinct frailty instruments.
methodsCross-sectional data from the Studying Ageing in Rheumatoid Arthritis (STAR) study were used, including 207 patients with RA and 214 population controls aged 55-85 years. Frailty was assessed using the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI; 15 yes/no items; physical, cognitive, social, psychological domains; frail ≥ 4/15) in all participants and the Fried criteria (five yes/no items; physical domain; prefrail = 1-2, frail ≥ 3, and combined frail/prefrail ≥ 1 deficit) in a clinically assessed subgroup (RA: n = 88, controls: n = 96). Prevalence and overlap between instruments were described by group. Uni- and multivariable logistic (GFI: frailty vs robust) and Poisson (Fried: frail/prefrail vs robust) regressions assessed effects of age, group, the age*group interaction and additional covariates.
resultsFrailty prevalence was higher in RA than controls for GFI-frailty (34% vs 18%) and Fried-frailty/prefrailty (72% vs 50%). Among GFI-frail persons, 88% of patients with RA compared with 69% of controls were also frail or prefrail by Fried. Age was not associated with frailty in uni- or multivariable analyses for either instrument, in RA or controls (pinteraction age*group >0.10). The association with RA became insignificant after multivariable adjustment. Living alone, comorbidity score ≥1, higher fatigue and anxiety were associated with GFI-frailty, and higher BMI and poorer physical function with Fried-frailty/prefrailty.
conclusionOlder adults with RA show higher (pre)frailty prevalence than controls, which is associated with disease-related consequences and vulnerability rather than age, questioning the added value of frailty assessment beyond routine clinical 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.