ReviewOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[Biological age in orthopedics : Importance, assessment, and clinical recommendations].
Review in Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronological age insufficiently reflects differences in physiological reserve, resilience, and regenerative capacity. Biological age (BA) estimates aging from molecular, physiological, and functional characteristics.
objectivesTo describe BA concepts and assessment methods and evaluate their relevance for orthopedic rehabilitation. MATERIALS AND
methodsNarrative review based on structured MEDLINE/PubMed and manual search, with a focus on reviews, meta-analyses, consensus papers, and key methodological studies.
resultsEpigenetic, phenotypic, and laboratory-based models capture different dimensions of aging and are not directly comparable. Frailty, sarcopenia, gait speed, chair-rise performance, grip strength, endurance, and deficit accumulation have the greatest practical value. Frailty and sarcopenia predict complications, prolonged care, non-home discharge, and mortality after orthopedic procedures beyond chronological age.
conclusionsBA should be interpreted as a multidimensional risk profile. A staged assessment combining frailty screening, muscle strength, mobility, endurance, nutrition, and cognition is recommended. Molecular aging clocks are not currently recommended for routine care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42734668What 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.