Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 189

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Performance of Edmonton Frail Scale on frailty assessment: its association with multi-dimensional geriatric conditions assessed with specific screening tools

Open access
Perna, Simone, Francis, Matthew D’Arcy, Bologna, Chiara, Moncaglieri, Francesca, Riva, Antonella, Morazzoni, Paolo, Allegrini, Pietro, Isu, Antonio, Vigo, Beatrice, Guerriero, Fabio, Rondanelli, Mariangela·2017·BMC Geriatrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) on frailty assessment in association with multi-dimensional conditions assessed with specific screening tools and to explore the prevalence of frailty by gender. METHODS: We enrolled 366 hospitalised patients (women\men: 251\115), mean age 81.5 years. The EFS was given to the patients to evaluate their frailty. Then we collected data concerning cognitive status through Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), health status (evaluated with the number of diseases), functional independence (Barthel Index and Activities Daily Living; BI, ADL, IADL), use of drugs (counting of drugs taken every day), Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Skeletal Muscle Index of sarcopenia (SMI), osteoporosis and functionality (Handgrip strength). RESULTS: According with the EFS, the 19.7% of subjects were classified as non frail, 66.4% as apparently vulnerable and 13.9% with severe frailty. The EFS scores were associated with cognition (MMSE: β = 0.980; p < 0.01), functional independence (ADL: β = -0.512; p < 0.00); (IADL: β = -0.338; p < 0.01); use of medications (β = 0.110; p < 0.01); nutrition (MNA: β = -0.413; p < 0.01); mood (GDS: β = -0.324; p < 0.01); functional performance (Handgrip: β = -0.114, p < 0.01) (BI: β = -0.037; p < 0.01), but not with number of comorbidities (β = 0.108; p = 0.052). In osteoporotic patients versus not-osteoporotic patients the mean EFS score did not differ between groups (women: p = 0.365; men: p = 0.088), whereas in Sarcopenic versus not-Sarcopenic patients, there was a significant differences in women: p < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that measuring frailty with EFS is helpful and performance tool for stratifying the state of fragility in a group of institutionalized elderly. As matter of facts the EFS has been shown to be associated with several geriatric conditions such independence, drugs assumption, mood, mental, functional and nutritional status.

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/s12877-016-0382-3

Cites

8 of 8 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 8 references

Cited by

See all 189

Metadata

Authors
Perna, S., Francis, M. D., Bologna, C., Moncaglieri, F., Riva, A., Morazzoni, P., Allegrini, P., Isu, A., Vigo, B., Guerriero, F., & Rondanelli, M.
Venue
BMC Geriatrics
Published
2017-01-04
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
2-2
ISSN
1471-2318 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2566890136
Cited by
189
References
8
FWCI
8.46
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: Performance of Edmonton Frail Scale on frailty assessment: its association with multi-dimensional geriatric conditions assessed with specific screening tools. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12877-016-0382-3
The paper
Perna, S., Francis, M. D., Bologna, C., Moncaglieri, F., Riva, A., Morazzoni, P., Allegrini, P., Isu, A., Vigo, B., Guerriero, F., & Rondanelli, M. (2017). Performance of Edmonton Frail Scale on frailty assessment: its association with multi-dimensional geriatric conditions assessed with specific screening tools. BMC Geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-016-0382-3

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.