SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Models for identifying cognitive frailty in hospitalized older adults with chronic heart failure in China: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Position paper: a coordinated approach to fracture and fall prevention from seven international organizations.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate models for identifying cognitive frailty (CF) among hospitalized older adults with chronic heart failure (CHF) in China and assess their intended use, performance, and methodological quality. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, VIP, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database from inception to March 31, 2026. Two reviewers independently screened the records according to the predefined eligibility criteria and extracted data using the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies. For each included study, the operational definition of CF, the reported approach to dementia exclusion, and the timing of predictor and outcome assessment were rechecked. Models in which predictors and CF were assessed during the same hospitalization were classified as diagnostic or screening models for prevalent CF rather than prognostic models for future CF onset. Risk of bias and applicability were independently assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Results: Eight cross-sectional studies reporting 20 models were included. All were conducted among hospitalized older adults with CHF in China, and none predicted incident CF during follow-up. Development sample sizes ranged from 246 to 645, and CF prevalence ranged from 17.8% to 50.5%. Six studies performed internal validation, four performed external validation, and one reported no validation; three studies performed both internal and external validation. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in external validation ranged from 0.770 to 0.852. One study did not report calibration. The most frequently retained predictors were age, New York Heart Association functional classification, depression, nutritional status, and sleep-related factors. All studies had a high overall risk of bias, whereas applicability concerns were generally low. Conclusion: Existing evidence concerns concurrent identification of prevalent CF rather than prediction of future onset. Current models are not ready for routine clinical decision-making because of high risk of bias, incomplete reporting, limited external validation, and lack of clinical-impact evidence. Longitudinal model development, multicenter external validation, comprehensive calibration and clinical-utility assessment, and prospective impact evaluation are required before implementation. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261413101, CRD420261413101.
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.