Cited by 55Frailty in Older AdultsChronic Disease Management StrategiesNutrition and Health in Aging

Comparing the prognostic value of geriatric health indicators: a population-based study

Open access
Zucchelli, Alberto, Vetrano, Davide L., Grande, Giulia, Calderón-Larrañaga, Amaia, Fratiglioni, Laura, Marengoni, Alessandra, Rizzuto, Debora·2019·BMC Medicine

Abstract

Background: The identification of individuals at increased risk of poor health-related outcomes is a priority. Geriatric research has proposed several indicators shown to be associated with these outcomes, but a head-to-head comparison of their predictive accuracy is still lacking. We therefore aimed to compare the accuracy of five geriatric health indicators in predicting different outcomes among older persons: frailty index (FI), frailty phenotype (FP), walking speed (WS), multimorbidity, and a summary score including clinical diagnoses, functioning, and disability (the Health Assessment Tool; HAT). Methods: Data were retrieved from the Swedish National Study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen, an ongoing longitudinal study including 3363 people aged 60+. To inspect the accuracy of geriatric health indicators, we employed areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the prediction of 3-year and 5-year mortality, 1-year and 3-year unplanned hospitalizations (1+), and contacts with healthcare providers in the 6 months before and after baseline evaluation (2+). Results: FI, WS, and HAT showed the best accuracy in the prediction of mortality [AUC(95%CI) for 3-year mortality 0.84 (0.82–0.86), 0.85 (0.83–0.87), 0.87 (0.85–0.88) and AUC(95%CI) for 5-year mortality 0.84 (0.82–0.86), 0.85 (0.83–0.86), 0.86 (0.85–0.88), respectively]. Unplanned hospitalizations were better predicted by the FI [AUC(95%CI) 1-year 0.73 (0.71–0.76); 3-year 0.72 (0.70–0.73)] and HAT [AUC(95%CI) 1-year 0.73 (0.71–0.75); 3-year 0.71 (0.69–0.73)]. The most accurate predictor of multiple contacts with healthcare providers was multimorbidity [AUC(95%CI) 0.67 (0.65–0.68)]. Predictions were generally less accurate among younger individuals (< 78 years old). Conclusion: Specific geriatric health indicators predict clinical outcomes with different accuracy. Comprehensive indicators (HAT, FI, WS) perform better in predicting mortality and hospitalization. Multimorbidity exhibits the best accuracy in the prediction of multiple contacts with providers.

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/s12916-019-1418-2

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • A Frailty Index constructed with a similar number of variables was superior to other frailty tools in predicting mortality.

    “Importantly, one study has shown that a FI constructed with a similar number of variables was superior to other frailty tools in predicting mortality [4].”

    From Frailty index predicts poor outcome in COVID-19 patients (2020) · cites this paper as [4]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [34]Socialstyrelsen. The National Patient Register. In: statistics and data, https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/en/statistics-and-data/registers/alla-register/the-national-patient-register/, vol. 2019: Socialstyrelsen; 2019. Accessed 16 May 2019.
  2. [35]Lezak MD Neuropsychological assessment 2004 4 Oxford Oxford University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zucchelli, A., Vetrano, D. L., Grande, G., Calderón-Larrañaga, A., Fratiglioni, L., Marengoni, A., & Rizzuto, D.
Affiliations
Stockholm University (SE)
Corresponding author
Zucchelli, Alberto
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2019-10-02
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
185-185
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2978966359
Cited by
55
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Brescia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Vetenskapsrådet (521-2013-8676, 2017-06088, 2016-00981)
  • Forskningsrådet för Arbetsliv och Socialvetenskap (2016-07175, 2017-01764)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
Keywords
frailty index, Fried frailty phenotype, walking speed, multimorbidity, health assessment tools, mortality prediction, emergency admissions, health care utilization, older adults, prognostic accuracy, population-based cohort, clinical diagnoses
MeSH terms
Frailty, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Persons with Disabilities, Health Status Indicators, Hospitalization, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Mortality, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Sweden, Geriatric Assessment, Frail Elderly

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