ReviewCureus2026
Frailty as a Predictor of Clinical Outcomes After Acute Ischemic Stroke in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Frailty, a state of reduced physiological reserve, is increasingly recognised as a determinant of outcome in older adults with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) that is distinct from chronological age. We systematically reviewed and synthesised the association between pre-stroke/baseline frailty and clinical outcomes - mortality and poor functional outcome - after AIS in older adults, and examined effect modification by frailty instrument and by receipt of reperfusion therapy. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to 20 June 2026 for original observational studies reporting an adjusted association between a defined frailty measure and mortality or functional outcome in older AIS patients, following PRISMA 2020. Two reviewers screened, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Maximally adjusted estimates were pooled with DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models, separately for odds ratios and hazard ratios and within homogeneous outcome/contrast groups; heterogeneity was quantified with I². Twelve studies met the eligibility criteria, five of which contributed a maximally adjusted estimate to meta-analysis. Across instruments (Clinical Frailty Scale, Hospital Frailty Risk Score, deficit-accumulation and laboratory frailty indices), higher frailty was consistently associated with increased mortality and worse functional outcome. In verified data, laboratory-index frailty (FI-LAB) independently predicted 12-month mortality after endovascular therapy (frail vs robust, adjusted HR 3.61, 95% CI 1.98-6.61), and each additional Hospital Frailty Risk Score point independently predicted 90-day mortality (adjusted OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00-1.24) and worse functional outcome (adjusted OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00-1.27). In random-effects meta-analyses restricted to cohorts reporting a maximally adjusted estimate, frailty was associated with more than doubled odds of poor functional outcome (pooled adjusted OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.11-5.35; I² = 53%; three cohorts) and with roughly tripled early mortality (pooled adjusted HR 3.24, 95% CI 1.67-6.27; I² = 0%; two cohorts), consistent in direction and magnitude with the most recent published synthesis (pooled OR 2.04 for poor functional outcome). Frailty is a robust, instrument-independent predictor of death and disability after AIS in older adults and merits routine assessment to inform prognosis and individualised care, rather than to justify withholding evidence-based treatment.
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.