Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 494

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Frailty Instrument for primary care: findings from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE)

Open access
Romero-Ortuno, Roman, Walsh, Cathal D, Lawlor, Brian A, Kenny, Rose Anne·2010·BMC Geriatrics
DOI 10.1186/1471-2318-10-57
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A frailty paradigm would be useful in primary care to identify older people at risk, but appropriate metrics at that level are lacking. We created and validated a simple instrument for frailty screening in Europeans aged ≥50. Our study is based on the first wave of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE, http://www.share-project.org), a large population-based survey conducted in 2004-2005 in twelve European countries. SUBJECTS: SHARE Wave 1 respondents (17,304 females and 13,811 males). MEASURES: five SHARE variables approximating Fried's frailty definition. Analyses (for each gender): 1) estimation of a discreet factor (DFactor) model based on the frailty variables using LatentGOLD. A single DFactor with three ordered levels or latent classes (i.e. non-frail, pre-frail and frail) was modelled; 2) the latent classes were characterised against a biopsychosocial range of Wave 1 variables; 3) the prospective mortality risk (unadjusted and age-adjusted) for each frailty class was established on those subjects with known mortality status at Wave 2 (2007-2008) (11,384 females and 9,163 males); 4) two web-based calculators were created for easy retrieval of a subject's frailty class given any five measurements. RESULTS: Females: the DFactor model included 15,578 cases (standard R2 = 0.61). All five frailty indicators discriminated well (p < 0.001) between the three classes: non-frail (N = 10,420; 66.9%), pre-frail (N = 4,025; 25.8%), and frail (N = 1,133; 7.3%). Relative to the non-frail class, the age-adjusted Odds Ratio (with 95% Confidence Interval) for mortality at Wave 2 was 2.1 (1.4 - 3.0) in the pre-frail and 4.8 (3.1 - 7.4) in the frail. Males: 12,783 cases (standard R2 = 0.61, all frailty indicators had p < 0.001): non-frail (N = 10,517; 82.3%), pre-frail (N = 1,871; 14.6%), and frail (N = 395; 3.1%); age-adjusted OR (95% CI) for mortality: 3.0 (2.3 - 4.0) in the pre-frail, 6.9 (4.7 - 10.2) in the frail. CONCLUSIONS: The SHARE Frailty Instrument has sufficient construct and predictive validity, and is readily and freely accessible via web calculators. To our knowledge, SHARE-FI represents the first European research effort towards a common frailty language at the community level.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2318-10-57

Cites

29 of 29 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 29 references

Cited by

See all 494

Metadata

Authors
Romero-Ortuno, R., Walsh, C. D., Lawlor, B. A., & Kenny, R. A.
Venue
BMC Geriatrics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010-08-24
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
57-57
ISSN
1471-2318 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-2318-10-57
OpenAlex
W2136239977
Cited by
494
References
29
FWCI
6.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: A Frailty Instrument for primary care: findings from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2318-10-57
The paper
Romero-Ortuno, R., Walsh, C. D., Lawlor, B. A., & Kenny, R. A. (2010). A Frailty Instrument for primary care: findings from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). BMC Geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-10-57

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.