ArticleBMC medicine2026
Comparing geriatric assessment tools for predicting negative health outcomes in older adults.
Article in BMC 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAmid global population aging, evidence-based geriatric assessment tools are essential for clinical decision-making and risk stratification. Despite growing interest, few studies have comprehensively compared the discriminative ability of existing tools, particularly as new tools have recently become available. In this study, we aimed to perform such a comparison across a wide range of patient-relevant health outcomes.
methodsThis population-based prospective cohort study used data from the Swedish National study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K). We included 3,108 adults aged ≥ 60 years at baseline (2001-2004), who were followed up for up to six years. Seven tools (Health Assessment Tool [HAT], SNAC-K Frailty Index (FI) [SNACK-FI], Primary Care FI [PC-FI], Intrinsic Capacity [IC], Geriatric 8 [G8], Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI], and Cumulative Illness Rating Scale [CIRS]) were evaluated in terms of their discriminative ability for formal care use, institutionalization, dementia, disability, injurious falls, self-rated health, quality of life, unplanned hospitalization, and mortality, using Harrell's C-index estimated from unadjusted cause-specific Cox models.
resultsHAT, IC, and SNACK-FI consistently ranked among the top three performers across all outcomes. The highest C-indices were observed for institutionalization (HAT 0.93 [0.91, 0.95], IC 0.93 [0.90, 0.94], SNACK-FI 0.92 [0.89, 0.94]); 1-year mortality (HAT 0.88 [0.85, 0.91], SNACK-FI 0.87 [0.84, 0.91], IC 0.86 [0.82, 0.89]); dementia (HAT 0.87 [0.85, 0.89], IC 0.88 [0.86, 0.90], SNACK-FI 0.86 [0.83, 0.88]); and formal care use (HAT 0.83 [0.81, 0.86], IC 0.85 [0.83, 0.88], SNACK-FI 0.80 [0.77, 0.83]). Tools incorporating physical function metrics (e.g., gait speed) showed higher discriminative ability than those that omitted them. IC and SNACK-FI showed marginal and clinically negligible occasional gains over HAT ( ≤ 0.02 differences in C-index), despite greater complexity and a larger number of indicators. Guideline-endorsed tools (e.g., G8, CCI, CIRS) showed comparatively lower discrimination across outcomes.
conclusionsContemporary geriatric assessment tools show promise. Tools incorporating physical function metrics demonstrated superior discriminative ability, suggesting these measures may be integral to geriatric prognosis and risk stratification. Given the underperformance of several established tools, reappraisal of current guideline recommendations may be warranted.
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.