Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 482

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and Initial Validation of the Risk Analysis Index for Measuring Frailty in Surgical Populations

Open access
Hall, Daniel E., Arya, Shipra, Schmid, Kendra K., Blaser, Casey, Carlson, Mark A., Bailey, Travis L., Purviance, Georgia, Bockman, Tammy, Lynch, Thomas G., Johanning, Jason·2017·JAMA Surgery

Abstract

Importance: Growing consensus suggests that frailty-associated risks should inform shared surgical decision making. However, it is not clear how best to screen for frailty in preoperative surgical populations. Objective: To develop and validate the Risk Analysis Index (RAI), a 14-item instrument used to measure surgical frailty. It can be calculated prospectively (RAI-C), using a clinical questionnaire, or retrospectively (RAI-A), using variables from the surgical quality improvement databases (Veterans Affairs or American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Projects). Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-site, prospective cohort from July 2011 to September 2015 at the Veterans Affairs Nebraska-Western Iowa Heath Care System, a Level 1b Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The study included all patients presenting to the medical center for elective surgery. Exposures: We assessed the RAI-C for all patients scheduled for surgery, linking these scores to administrative and quality improvement data to calculate the RAI-A and the modified Frailty Index. Main Outcomes and Measures: Receiver operator characteristics and C statistics for each measure predicting postoperative mortality and morbidity. Results: Of the participants, the mean (SD) age was 60.7 (13.9) years and 249 participants (3.6%) were women. We assessed the RAI-C 10 698 times, from which we linked 6856 unique patients to mortality data. The C statistic predicting 180-day mortality for the RAI-C was 0.772. Of these 6856 unique patients, we linked 2785 to local Veterans Affairs Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Projects data and calculated the C statistic for both the RAI-A (0.823) and RAI-C (0.824), along with the correlation between the 2 scores (r = 0.478; P < .001). Of these 2785 patients, there were sufficient data to calculate the modified Frailty Index for 1021, in which the C statistics were 0.865 (RAI-A), 0.797 (RAI-C), and 0.811 (modified Frailty Index). The correlation between the RAI-A and RAI-C was 0.547, and the correlations of the modified Frailty Index to the RAI-A and RAI-C were 0.301 and 0.269, respectively (all P < .001). A cutoff of RAI-C of at least 21 classified 18.3% patients as "frail" with a sensitivity of 0.50 and specificity of 0.82, whereas the RAI-A was less sensitive (0.25) and more specific (0.97), classifying only 3.7% as "frail." Conclusions and Relevance: The RAI-C and RAI-A represent effective tools for measuring frailty in surgical populations with predictive ability on par with other frailty tools. Moderate correlation between the measures suggests convergent validity. The RAI-C offers the advantage of prospective, preoperative assessment that is proved feasible for large-scale screening in clinical practice. However, further efforts should be directed at determining the optimal components of preoperative frailty assessment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4202

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 22 references

Cited by

See all 482

Metadata

Authors
Hall, D. E., Arya, S., Schmid, K. K., Blaser, C., Carlson, M. A., Bailey, T. L., Purviance, G., Bockman, T., Lynch, T. G., & Johanning, J.
Venue
JAMA Surgery
Published
2017-02-01
Volume
152
Issue
2
Pages
175
ISSN
2168-6254 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2551397408
Cited by
482
References
22
FWCI
8.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development and Initial Validation of the Risk Analysis Index for Measuring Frailty in Surgical Populations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4202
The paper
Hall, D. E., Arya, S., Schmid, K. K., Blaser, C., Carlson, M. A., Bailey, T. L., Purviance, G., Bockman, T., Lynch, T. G., & Johanning, J. (2017). Development and Initial Validation of the Risk Analysis Index for Measuring Frailty in Surgical Populations. JAMA Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4202

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.