The DOI matches its Crossref record; 239 of the 239 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measures of frailty in population-based studies: an overview
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Although research productivity in the field of frailty has risen exponentially in recent years, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the measurement of this syndrome. This overview offers three services: first, we provide a comprehensive catalogue of current frailty measures; second, we evaluate their reliability and validity; third, we report on their popularity of use. METHODS: In order to identify relevant publications, we searched MEDLINE (from its inception in 1948 to May 2011); scrutinized the reference sections of the retrieved articles; and consulted our own files. An indicator of the frequency of use of each frailty instrument was based on the number of times it had been utilized by investigators other than the originators. RESULTS: Of the initially retrieved 2,166 papers, 27 original articles described separate frailty scales. The number (range: 1 to 38) and type of items (range of domains: physical functioning, disability, disease, sensory impairment, cognition, nutrition, mood, and social support) included in the frailty instruments varied widely. Reliability and validity had been examined in only 26% (7/27) of the instruments. The predictive validity of these scales for mortality varied: for instance, hazard ratios/odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for mortality risk for frail relative to non-frail people ranged from 1.21 (0.78; 1.87) to 6.03 (3.00; 12.08) for the Phenotype of Frailty and 1.57 (1.41; 1.74) to 10.53 (7.06; 15.70) for the Frailty Index. Among the 150 papers which we found to have used at least one of the 27 frailty instruments, 69% (n = 104) reported on the Phenotype of Frailty, 12% (n = 18) on the Frailty Index, and 19% (n = 28) on one of the remaining 25 instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are numerous frailty scales currently in use, reliability and validity have rarely been examined. The most evaluated and frequently used measure is the Phenotype of Frailty.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Frailty in Older Adults: Evidence for a Phenotype
Fried, L. P., Tangen, C. M., Walston, J., Newman, A. B., Hirsch, C., Gottdiener, J., Seeman, T., Tracy, R., Kop, W. J., Burke, G., et al. (2001) · The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences · doi:10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146 · Cited by 24,907
Dermyshi, E., Wang, Y., Yan, C., Hong, W., Qiu, G., Gong, X., & Zhang, T. (2017) · Neonatology · doi:10.1159/000454668 · Cited by 24,451
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Older Adults' Reasons for Using Technology while Aging in Place
Peek, S. T. M., Luijkx, K. G., Rijnaard, M. D., Nieboer, M. E., van der Voort, C. S., Aarts, S., van Hoof, J., Vrijhoef, H. J. M., & Wouters, E. J. M. (2016) · Gerontology · doi:10.1159/000430949 · Cited by 19,690
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (1989) · Cited by 9,595
A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people
Rockwood, K. (2005) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.050051 · Cited by 8,968
Lower-extremity function in persons over the age of 70 years as a predictor of subsequent disability
Guralnik, J. M., Ferrucci, L., Simonsick, E. M., Salive, M. E., & Wallace, R. B. (1995) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199503023320902 · Cited by 4,083
Fried, L. P., Ferrucci, L., Darer, J., Williamson, J. D., & Anderson, G. (2004) · The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences · doi:10.1093/gerona/59.3.m255 · Cited by 4,032
Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2008) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231881.001.0001 · Cited by 2,631
Frailty as a predictor of surgical outcomes in older patients
Makary, M. A., Segev, D. L., Pronovost, P. J., Syin, D., Bandeen-Roche, K., Patel, P., Takenaga, R., Devgan, L., Holzmueller, C. G., Tian, J., et al. (2010) · Journal of the American College of Surgeons · doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.01.028 · Cited by 2,184
Cited by
Frailty and sarcopenia: The potential role of an aged immune system
Wilson, D., Jackson, T., Sapey, E., & Lord, J. M. (2017) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2017.01.006 · Cited by 573
Burden of frailty in the elderly population: perspectives for a public health challenge
Buckinx, F., Rolland, Y., Reginster, J.-Y., Ricour, C., Petermans, J., & Bruyère, O. (2015) · Archives of Public Health · doi:10.1186/s13690-015-0068-x · Cited by 465
Cognitive frailty, a novel target for the prevention of elderly dependency
Ruan, Q., Yu, Z., Chen, M., Bao, Z., Li, J., & He, W. (2015) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2014.12.004 · Cited by 379
Dedeyne, L., Deschodt, M., Verschueren, S., Tournoy, J., & Gielen, E. (2017) · Clinical Interventions in Aging · doi:10.2147/cia.s130794 · Cited by 315
Agreement Between 35 Published Frailty Scores in the General Population
Aguayo, G. A., Donneau, A.-F., Vaillant, M. T., Schritz, A., Franco, O. H., Stranges, S., Malisoux, L., Guillaume, M., & Witte, D. R. (2017) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwx061 · Cited by 264
Metadata
- Authors
- Bouillon, K., Kivimaki, M., Hamer, M., Sabia, S., Fransson, E. I., Singh-Manoux, A., Gale, C. R., & Batty, G. D.
- Venue
- BMC Geriatrics
- Published
- 2013-06-21
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 64-64
- ISSN
- 1471-2318 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2098726460
- Cited by
- 469
- References
- 239
- FWCI
- 13.78
- 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: Measures of frailty in population-based studies: an overview. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2318-13-64
- The paper
- Bouillon, K., Kivimaki, M., Hamer, M., Sabia, S., Fransson, E. I., Singh-Manoux, A., Gale, C. R., & Batty, G. D. (2013). Measures of frailty in population-based studies: an overview. BMC Geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-13-64
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.
