Cited by 491Frailty in Older AdultsAging and Gerontology ResearchAging, Health, and Disability

Old or frail: what tells us more?

Schuurmans, H., Steverink, N., Lindenberg, S., Frieswijk, N., Slaets, J. P. J.·2004·The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Selecting elderly persons who need geriatric interventions and making accurate treatment decisions are recurring challenges in geriatrics. Chronological age, although often used, does not seem to be the best selection criterion. Instead, the concept of frailty, which indicates several concurrent losses in resources, can be used. METHODS: The predictive values of chronological age and frailty were investigated in a large community sample of persons aged 65 years and older, randomly drawn from the register of six municipalities in the northern regions of the Netherlands (45% of the original addressees). The participants' generative capacity to sustain well-being (i.e., self-management abilities) was used as the main outcome measure. RESULTS: When using chronological age instead of frailty, both too many and too few persons were selected. Furthermore, frailty related more strongly (with beta values ranging from -.25 to -.39) to a decline in the participants' self-management abilities than did chronological age (with beta values ranging from -.06 to -.14). Chronological age added very little to the explained variances of all outcomes once frailty was included. CONCLUSIONS: Using frailty as the criterion to select older persons at risk for interventions may be better than selecting persons based only on their chronological age.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/gerona/59.9.m962

Cites

16 of 16 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?

  • The Groningen Frailty Indicator and Tilburg Frailty Indicator are simple and similar questionnaire-based approaches to detecting frailty.

    “The Groningen Frailty Indicator (102) and the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (103) are simple and similar (104) questionnaire based approaches to detecting people with frailty.”

    From Frailty in elderly people (2013) · cites this paper as [103]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schuurmans, H., Steverink, N., Lindenberg, S., Frieswijk, N., & Slaets, J. P. J.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Schuurmans, H.
Venue
The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
Published
2004-09-01
Volume
59
Issue
9
Pages
M962-M965
ISSN
  • 1079-5006 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-535X
OpenAlex
W2123464099
Cited by
491
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 39
FWCI
4.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journals of Gerontology Series A (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Aging, Health, and Disability
Keywords
frailty, chronological age, older adults, geriatric intervention, self-management ability, selection criteria, predictive validity, community-dwelling older adults, well-being
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Frail Elderly, 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