ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2026
Predictive ability of two frailty screening tools for older patients in an emergency department: a comparative study.
Article in Internal and emergency 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Frailty identification is crucial for guiding individualized treatment in emergency geriatric care. The aims were to prospectively evaluate frailty status in all patients aged 65 and older presenting with acute illness in the emergency department (ED), and to compare the predictive performance of bedside-assessed Brief Multidimensional Prognostic Index (B-MPI), with healthcare professional-assessed Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) for unplanned readmissions and 30- and 90-day mortality. This prospective observational cohort study evaluated frailty status in 402 patients aged 65 years or older admitted to the ED at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, between April 2023 and January 2025 and included through convenience sampling. Frailty was assessed using two validated tools: the CFS, administered by physicians or geriatric healthcare staff, and the B-MPI, administered bedside incorporating patient interviews or caregiver input, and electronic medical record data. Data showed that 40% of the older patients were classified as frail by the CFS, while 50% were moderately or severely frail according to the B-MPI. Both tools predicted 30-day and 90-day mortality with no difference in accuracy for predicting mortality. Neither tool effectively predicted unplanned hospital readmissions. Mortality rates in the cohort were 5.7% at 30 days and 12.9% at 90 days post-admission. The findings suggest that both tools are valuable for identifying frailty and predicting mortality in older acutely ill patients. However, the absence of a statistically significant difference between the tools should not be interpreted as evidence of equivalence or comparable performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42806214What 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.