Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,185

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Searching for an Operational Definition of Frailty: A Delphi Method Based Consensus Statement. The Frailty Operative Definition-Consensus Conference Project

Open access
Rodríguez-Mañas, Leocadio, Féart, Catherine, Mann, Giovanni, Viña, Jose, Chatterji, Somnath, Chodzko-Zajko, Wojtek, Gonzalez-Colaço Harmand, Magali, Bergman, Howard, Carcaillon, Laure, Nicholson, Caroline, Scuteri, Angelo, Sinclair, Alan, Pelaez, Martha, Van der Cammen, Tischa, Beland, François, Bickenbach, Jerome, Delamarche, Paul, Ferrucci, Luigi, Fried, Linda P., Gutiérrez-Robledo, Luis Miguel, Rockwood, Kenneth, Rodríguez Artalejo, Fernando, Serviddio, Gaetano, Vega, Enrique·2013·The Journals of Gerontology: Series A

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus regarding the definition of frailty for clinical uses. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was used to attempt to achieve consensus definition. Experts were selected from different fields and organized into five Focus Groups. A questionnaire was developed and sent to experts in the area of frailty. Responses and comments were analyzed using a pre-established strategy. Statements with an agreement more than or equal to 80% were accepted. RESULTS: Overall, 44% of the statements regarding the concept of frailty and 18% of the statements regarding diagnostic criteria were accepted. There was consensus on the value of screening for frailty and about the identification of six domains of frailty for inclusion in a clinical definition, but no agreement was reached concerning a specific set of clinical/laboratory biomarkers useful for diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: There is agreement on the usefulness of defining frailty in clinical settings as well as on its main dimensions. However, additional research is needed before an operative definition of frailty can be established.

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/gerona/gls119

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 1,185

Metadata

Authors
Rodríguez-Mañas, L., Féart, C., Mann, G., Viña, J., Chatterji, S., Chodzko-Zajko, W., Gonzalez-Colaço Harmand, M., Bergman, H., Carcaillon, L., Nicholson, C., Scuteri, A., Sinclair, A., Pelaez, M., Van der Cammen, T., Beland, F., Bickenbach, J., Delamarche, P., Ferrucci, L., Fried, L. P., Gutiérrez-Robledo, L. M., Rockwood, K., Rodríguez Artalejo, F., Serviddio, G., & Vega, E.
Venue
The Journals of Gerontology: Series A
Published
2012-04-16
Volume
68
Issue
1
Pages
62-67
ISSN
  • 1079-5006 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-535X
OpenAlex
W2116358746
Cited by
1,185
References
4
FWCI
26.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Searching for an Operational Definition of Frailty: A Delphi Method Based Consensus Statement. The Frailty Operative Definition-Consensus Conference Project. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/gerona/gls119
The paper
Rodríguez-Mañas, L., Féart, C., Mann, G., Viña, J., Chatterji, S., Chodzko-Zajko, W., Gonzalez-Colaço Harmand, M., Bergman, H., Carcaillon, L., Nicholson, C., Scuteri, A., Sinclair, A., Pelaez, M., Van der Cammen, T., Beland, F., Bickenbach, J., Delamarche, P., Ferrucci, L., Fried, L. P., . . . Vega, E. (2013). Searching for an Operational Definition of Frailty: A Delphi Method Based Consensus Statement. The Frailty Operative Definition-Consensus Conference Project. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/gls119

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.