Cited by 793Frailty in Older AdultsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesNutrition and Health in Aging

Outcome instruments to measure frailty: a systematic review

de Vries, N.M., Staal, J.B., van Ravensberg, C.D., Hobbelen, J.S.M., Olde Rikkert, M.G.M., Nijhuis-van der Sanden, M.W.G.·2011·Ageing Research Reviews

Abstract

Frailty is one of the greatest challenges for healthcare professionals. The level of frailty depends on several interrelated factors and can change over time while different interventions seem to be able to influence the level of frailty. Therefore, an outcome instrument to measure frailty with sound clinimetric properties is needed. A systematic review on evaluative measures of frailty was performed in the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cinahl and Cochrane. The results show numerous instruments that measure the level of frailty. This article gives a clear overview of the content of these frailty instruments and describes their clinimetric properties. Frailty instruments, however, are often developed as prognostic instruments and have also been validated as such. The clinimetric properties of these instruments as evaluative outcome measures are unclear.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.arr.2010.09.001

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A systematic review identified 20 candidate tools for frailty.

    “A systematic review with a broadly based study selection criteria identified 20 candidate tools for frailty (99).”

    From Frailty in elderly people (2013) · cites this paper as [99]

  • Most included studies in that review described primary research to investigate models of frailty or focused on functional restriction, which is insufficient for reliable identification of frailty.

    “most of the included studies described either primary research to investigate models of frailty or the focus was on functional restriction, which, although an important manifestation of frailty, is insufficient for reliable identification of the condition.”

    From Frailty in elderly people (2013) · cites this paper as [99]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Vries, N. M., Staal, J. B., van Ravensberg, C. D., Hobbelen, J. S. M., Olde Rikkert, M. G. M., & Nijhuis-van der Sanden, M. W. G.
Affiliations
Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
Venue
Ageing Research Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
104-114
ISSN
1568-1637 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1989930174
Cited by
793
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 79 · 2018: 64 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 63 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 26
FWCI
1.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ageing Research Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
Keywords
frailty, frailty assessment tools, outcome measures, clinimetric properties, instrument validation, frailty interventions
MeSH terms
Aged, Humans, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self-Assessment, Reproducibility of Results, Geriatric Assessment, Frail Elderly, Treatment Outcome, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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