ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Frailty across Hip arthroplasty pathways: vulnerability domains, outcomes, and implications for care-a narrative review.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Frailty helps explain why older patients with similar chronological age and comorbidity burdens experience markedly different outcomes after hip arthroplasty. Interpretation is complicated because instruments capture different vulnerabilities and elective primary, revision, and fracture-related arthroplasty impose distinct stresses and intervention windows. Review approach: PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection were searched from inception through 27 July 2026, followed by a targeted PubMed search on 29 July 2026. Eligibility, staged title-and-abstract screening, an explicit supplementary-search relevance score, and selection counts were documented. Evidence was synthesized narratively by vulnerability domain, procedure context, outcome, and potential action; no meta-analysis or uniform risk-of-bias appraisal was performed. Main findings: Cumulative-deficit indices support rapid risk stratification but may overlook cognition, nutrition, mobility, and social support. Physical frailty and sarcopenia are more closely related to functional recovery, whereas multidimensional assessment can identify interacting and potentially actionable vulnerabilities. Nutritional-inflammatory indices may add modest mortality-prediction information in hip-fracture surgery, but they partly reflect acute illness and remain adjunct markers rather than validated core frailty domains. Evidence is stronger for prognostic association than for the effectiveness of frailty-guided interventions. Conclusions: A clinically useful pathway should combine low-burden screening with targeted vulnerability-domain assessment, incorporate procedure context, and repeat assessment during recovery. Frailty should guide proportional monitoring, rehabilitation, discharge planning, and shared decisions rather than serve as an isolated threshold for denying surgery. Research priorities include context-specific validation, standardized patient-centred and resource outcomes, longitudinal assessment, and trials of domain-informed care.
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.