Cited by 8,968Frailty in Older AdultsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesChronic Disease Management Strategies

A global clinical measure of fitness and frailty in elderly people

Open access
Rockwood, K.·2005·Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is no single generally accepted clinical definition of frailty. Previously developed tools to assess frailty that have been shown to be predictive of death or need for entry into an institutional facility have not gained acceptance among practising clinicians. We aimed to develop a tool that would be both predictive and easy to use. METHODS: We developed the 7-point Clinical Frailty Scale and applied it and other established tools that measure frailty to 2305 elderly patients who participated in the second stage of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA). We followed this cohort prospectively; after 5 years, we determined the ability of the Clinical Frailty Scale to predict death or need for institutional care, and correlated the results with those obtained from other established tools. RESULTS: The CSHA Clinical Frailty Scale was highly correlated (r = 0.80) with the Frailty Index. Each 1-category increment of our scale significantly increased the medium-term risks of death (21.2% within about 70 mo, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.5%-30.6%) and entry into an institution (23.9%, 95% CI 8.8%-41.2%) in multivariable models that adjusted for age, sex and education. Analyses of receiver operating characteristic curves showed that our Clinical Frailty Scale performed better than measures of cognition, function or comorbidity in assessing risk for death (area under the curve 0.77 for 18-month and 0.70 for 70-month mortality). INTERPRETATION: Frailty is a valid and clinically important construct that is recognizable by physicians. Clinical judgments about frailty can yield useful predictive information.

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 · 10.1503/cmaj.050051

Cites

4 of 4 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?

  • The Clinical Frailty Score has been validated in the ICU and is useful mainly in elderly patients.

    “An additional score, the Clinical Frailty Score (25), ranging from 1 (very fit) to 7 (very frail) has been validated in the ICU and is useful mainly in elderly patients (26. 27).”
  • The Frailty Index came from the CSHA, a five-year prospective cohort of 10,263 Canadian older adults (mean age 82) studying dementia epidemiology and burden.

    “The Frailty Index (FI) was developed as part of the CSHA (71); a five year prospective cohort study (n=10,263) designed to investigate the epidemiology and burdens of dementia in older people in Canada (mean age: 82 years).”

    From Frailty in elderly people (2013) · cites this paper as [71]

  • Two main emerging frailty models are the phenotype approach and the cumulative deficit approach behind the CSHA Frailty Index.

    “The two principal emerging models of frailty are the phenotype model (3) and the cumulative deficit model underpinning the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (CSHA) Frailty Index (71).”

    From Frailty in elderly people (2013) · cites this paper as [71]

  • In two CSHA studies, clinically obtained CGA results were highly correlated with the research standard CSHA frailty index.

    “the clinically obtained CGA results were highly correlated with the research standard CSHA FI”

    From Frailty in elderly people (2013) · cites this paper as [71]

  • In two CSHA studies, clinically obtained CGA results were predictive of death and need for institutional care.

    “and were predictive of death and need for institutional care.”

    From Frailty in elderly people (2013) · cites this paper as [71]

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: 31

  1. Rockwood K, Mitnitski A, MacKnight C. Some mathematical models of frailty and their clinical implications. Rev Clin Gerontol 2002;12:109-17.
  2. Fried LP, Ferrucci L, Darer J, Williamson JD, Anderson G. Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty, and comorbidity: implications for improved targeting and care [review]. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004;59:255-63.
  3. Lipsitz LA. Physiological complexity, aging, and the path to frailty [review]. Sci Aging Knowledge Environ 2004;2004:pe16.
  4. Morley JE, Perry HM III, Miller DK. Editorial: something about frailty [re- view]. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2002;57:M698-704.
  5. Rockwood K, Fox RA, Stolee P, Robertson D, Beattie BL. Frailty in elderly people: an evolving concept [review]. CMAJ 1994;150(4):489-95.
  6. Wells JL, Seabrook JA, Stolee P, Borrie MJ, Knoefel F. State of the art in geriatric rehabilitation. Part I: review of frailty and comprehensive geriatric assessment [review]. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:890-7.
  7. Chin A Paw MJ, Dekker JM, Feskens EJ, Schouten EG, Kromhout D. How to select a frail elderly population? A comparison of three working defini- tions. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:1015-21.
  8. Strawbridge WJ, Shema SJ, Balfour JL, Higby HR, Kaplan GA. Antecedents of frailty over three decades in an older cohort. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 1998;53:S9-16.
  9. Rockwood K, Stadnyk K, MacKnight C, McDowell I, Hébert R, Hogan DB. A brief clinical instrument to classify frailty in elderly people [letter]. Lancet 1999;353(9148):205-6.
  10. Chin A Paw MJ, de Groot LC, van Gend SV, Schoterman MH, Schouten EG, Schroll M, et al. Inactivity and weight loss: effective criteria to identify frailty. J Nutr Health Aging 2003;7:55-60.
  11. Mitnitski AB, Song X, Rockwood K. The estimation of relative fitness and frailty in community-dwelling older adults using self-report data. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004;59:M627-32.
  12. Song X, Mitnitski A, MacKnight C, Rockwood K. Assessment of individual risk of death using self-report data: an artificial neural network compared with a Frailty Index. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52:1180-4.
  13. Rockwood K, Howlett SE, MacKnight C, Beattie BL, Bergman H, Hebert R, et al. Prevalence, attributes, and outcomes of fitness and frailty in commu- nity-dwelling older adults: report from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004;59:1310-7.
  14. CSHA Working Group. Canadian Study of Health and Aging: study meth- ods and prevalence of dementia. CMAJ 1994;150(6):899-913.
  15. CSHA Working Group. The incidence of dementia in Canada: the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Working Group. Neurology 2000;55:66-73.
  16. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. p. 4-13.
  17. Teng EL, Chui HC. The Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) examination. J Clin Psychiatry 1987;48:314-8.
  18. Conwell Y, Forbes NT, Cox C, Caine ED. Validation of a measure of physi- cal illness burden at autopsy: the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale. J Am Geri- atr Soc 1993;41:38-41.
  19. Graham JE, Rockwood K, Beattie BL, Eastwood R, Gauthier S, Tuokko H, et al. Prevalence and severity of cognitive impairment with and without de- mentia in an elderly population. Lancet 1997;349:1793-6.
  20. Ebly EM, Hogan DB, Parhad IM. Cognitive impairment in the nonde- mented elderly: results from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Arch Neurol 1995;52:612-9.
  21. Metz CE. Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 1978;8:283-98.
  22. Nourhashemi F, Andrieu S, Gillette-Guyonnet S, Vellas B, Albarede JL, Grandjean H. Instrumental activities of daily living as a potential marker of frailty: a study of 7364 community-dwelling elderly women (the EPIDOS study). J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2001;56:M448-53.
  23. Schuurmans H, Steverink N, Lindenberg S, Frieswijk N, Slaets JP. Old or frail: What tells us more? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004;59:M962-5.
  24. Gill TM, Allore H, Holford TR, Guo Z. The development of insidious dis- ability in activities of daily living among community-living older persons. Am J Med 2004;117:484 -91.
  25. Binder EF, Schechtman KB, Ehsani AA, Steger-May K, Brown M, Sinacore DR, et al. Effects of exercise training on frailty in community-dwelling older adults: results of a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;50: 1921-8.
  26. Charlson ME, Sax FL, MacKenzie CR, Fields SD, Braham RL, Douglas RG Jr. Assessing illness severity. Does clinical judgement work? J Chronic Dis 1986;39:439-52.
  27. Charlson ME, Hollenberg JP, Hou J, Cooper M, Pochapin M, Pecker M. Realizing the potential of clinical judgment: a real-time strategy for predict- ing outcomes and cost for medical inpatients. Am J Med 2000;109:189-95.
  28. Torres OH, Munoz J, Ruiz D, Ris J, Gich I, Coma E, et al. Outcome predic- tors of pneumonia in elderly patients: importance of functional assessment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52:1603-9.
  29. Song X, Mitnitski A, Cox J, Rockwood K. Comparison of machine learning techniques with classical statistical models in predicting health outcomes. Medinfo 2004;2004:736-40.
  30. Mitnitski AB, Mogilner AJ, MacKnight C, Rockwood K. The accumulation of deficits with age and possible invariants of aging. ScientificWorldJournal 2002;2:1816-22.
  31. Rockwood K, Mogilner AJ, Mitnitski AB. Changes with age in the distribu- tion of a frailty index. Mech Ageing Dev 2004;125:517-9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rockwood, K.
Affiliations
Dalhousie University (CA)
Corresponding author
Rockwood, K.
Venue
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Published
2005-08-30
Volume
173
Issue
5
Pages
489-495
ISSN
  • 0820-3946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1488-2329
OpenAlex
W2164186760
Cited by
8,968
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 884 · 2025: 935 · 2024: 1046 · 2023: 913 · 2022: 980 · 2021: 961 · 2020: 787 · 2019: 544 · 2018: 423 · 2017: 380 · 2016: 280 · 2015: 251 · 2014: 157 · 2013: 121 · 2012: 75
FWCI
12.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Medical Association Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • Dalhousie Medical Research Foundation
  • University of Calgary
  • University of Ottawa
  • McGill University
  • Dalhousie University
  • Pfizer Canada
  • Health Canada
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Frailty in Older Adults
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
frailty, Clinical Frailty Scale, frailty index, older adults, mortality prediction, institutional care, Canadian Study of Health and Aging, frailty assessment tools, clinical judgment
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Health Status, Humans, Institutionalization, Male, Mortality, Physical Fitness, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, 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