Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 265

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Frailty status at admission to hospital predicts multiple adverse outcomes

Open access
Hubbard, Ruth E., Peel, Nancye M., Samanta, Mayukh, Gray, Leonard C., Mitnitski, Arnold, Rockwood, Kenneth·2017·Age and Ageing

Abstract

Aims: frailty is proposed as a summative measure of health status and marker of individual vulnerability. We aimed to investigate the discriminative capacity of a frailty index (FI) derived from interRAI Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment for Acute Care (AC) in relation to multiple adverse inpatient outcomes. Methods: in this prospective cohort study, an FI was derived for 1,418 patients ≥70 years across 11 hospitals in Australia. The interRAI-AC was administered at admission and discharge by trained nurses, who also screened patients daily for geriatric syndromes. Results: in adjusted logistic regression models an increase of 0.1 in FI was significantly associated with increased likelihood of length of stay >28 days (odds ratio [OR]: 1.29 [1.10-1.52]), new discharge to residential aged care (OR: 1.31 [1.10-1.57]), in-hospital falls (OR: 1.29 [1.10-1.50]), delirium (OR: 2.34 [2.08-2.63]), pressure ulcer incidence (OR: 1.51 [1.23-1.87]) and inpatient mortality (OR: 2.01 [1.66-2.42]). For each of these adverse outcomes, the cut-point at which optimal sensitivity and specificity occurred was for an FI > 0.40. Specificity was higher than sensitivity with positive predictive values of 7-52% and negative predictive values of 88-98%. FI-AC was not significantly associated with readmissions to hospital. Conclusions: the interRAI-AC can be used to derive a single score that predicts multiple adverse outcomes in older inpatients. A score of ≤0.40 can well discriminate patients who are unlikely to die or experience a geriatric syndrome. Whether the FI-AC can result in management decisions that improve outcomes requires further study.

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 · 10.1093/ageing/afx081

Cites

37 of 37 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 37 references

Cited by

See all 265

Metadata

Authors
Hubbard, R. E., Peel, N. M., Samanta, M., Gray, L. C., Mitnitski, A., & Rockwood, K.
Venue
Age and Ageing
Published
2017-05-22
Volume
46
Issue
5
Pages
801-806
ISSN
  • 0002-0729 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2834
OpenAlex
W2619334327
Cited by
265
References
37
FWCI
14.05
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: Frailty status at admission to hospital predicts multiple adverse outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ageing/afx081
The paper
Hubbard, R. E., Peel, N. M., Samanta, M., Gray, L. C., Mitnitski, A., & Rockwood, K. (2017). Frailty status at admission to hospital predicts multiple adverse outcomes. Age and Ageing. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afx081

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.