Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42806214›Full record

ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2026

Predictive ability of two frailty screening tools for older patients in an emergency department: a comparative study.

Merete Gregersen, Troels Kjærskov Hansen, Ilona Davodian, Mathumila Thavapperai, Asmus Laue Tiufkær, Sofie Bach Clausen, Lone Winther Lietzen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Merete GregersenDepartment of Geriatrics, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark. meregreg@rm.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5365-7335
Troels Kjærskov HansenGeriatric Research and Clinical Evidence (GRACE), Department of Medicine Geriatric Section, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6946-1452
Ilona DavodianDepartment of Geriatrics, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.
Mathumila ThavapperaiDepartment of Geriatrics, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.
Asmus Laue TiufkærDepartment of Geriatrics, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.
Sofie Bach ClausenDepartment of Geriatrics, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.
Lone Winther LietzenDepartment of Geriatrics, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9520-406X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AgedEmergency serviceFrailtyHospitalPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID42806214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.