ReviewCureus2026
Frailty and Adverse Outcomes After Endovascular Revascularization for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: A Systematic Review and Exploratory 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Frailty is an increasingly recognized prognostic construct in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), but its association with adverse outcomes specifically after endovascular revascularization is uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized observational prognostic evidence linking frailty to post-revascularization outcomes in this population. Observational prognostic studies reporting endovascular-specific, frailty-stratified effect estimates in adults with CLTI were included. Frailty was defined using study-specified instruments, including the Claims-based Frailty Indicator, Clinical Frailty Scale, Hospital Frailty Risk score, and Critical Limb Ischemia Frailty Index. Data were extracted into a predefined workbook; risk of bias was appraised with the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool. Effect estimates were analyzed on the logarithmic scale. When pooling was possible, a random-effects model was fitted using restricted maximum likelihood in the metafor package in R. One prioritized contrast per study per outcome group was used to avoid double-counting. When fewer than two independent studies were available for an outcome group, results were summarized descriptively. Three studies were eligible for the main quantitative synthesis, and three additional studies were summarized in narrative or sensitivity analyses. Only one outcome group, the composite of death or major amputation, contained at least two independent studies and was pooled. The exploratory pooled hazard ratio for the prioritized highest/binary frailty contrast versus the lowest/non-frail reference group was 1.81 (95% confidence interval = 0.97-3.39; k = 2; τ² = 0.18; I² = 89.0%; Cochran Q-test p = 0.003 for heterogeneity). This estimate crossed the null. All remaining outcome groups (all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, major amputation, readmission mortality, unplanned readmission, and readmission due to major adverse cardiovascular events) were informed by a single study each and were described narratively. Publication bias was not formally assessed because no outcome group reached the prespecified threshold of 10 independent studies. Frailty was generally associated with worse outcomes in individual studies, but pooled evidence was limited to one exploratory outcome and did not reach statistical significance. Standardized, prospective, endovascular-specific studies are needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.
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.