ArticleAge and ageing2026
Existing validated tools for assessing intrinsic capacity and its components within a positive ageing framework: a scoping review and structured appraisal by the Multidisciplinary International Positive Ageing Group.
Article in Age and ageing, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPreserving intrinsic capacity (IC) is central to healthy ageing. However, no consensus exists regarding validated multidimensional instruments suitable for assessing IC across the adult lifespan. This scoping review identified instruments used to assess IC and to evaluate their scientific validity, clinical relevance and usability.
methodsAn updated literature search was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines in five databases for studies published between January 2022 and May 2025. This scoping review updates and expands upon a previously published comprehensive review. Nine experts independently evaluated all identified tools using predefined criteria: scientific validity, clinical relevance, usability in clinical practice, usability for self-assessment and suitability for adults aged <60 years.
resultsA total of 61 studies describing 61 distinct IC assessment instruments were included. All five IC domains were represented, although coverage across domains was uneven. Instruments assessing sensory capacity were scarce and generally received lower ratings than those targeting other domains. Only the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and EUROQOL-5D achieved the maximum expert score. Importantly, very few instruments were considered appropriate for assessing IC in adults younger than 60 years, limiting their potential use for early identification of functional decline and preventive interventions.
conclusionsCurrent IC assessment instruments show substantial heterogeneity in content, validity and usability, with important gaps in the assessment of sensory capacity and younger adults. The gaps identified in this scoping review suggest that the development and validation of a comprehensive, multidimensional IC assessment tool 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.