Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 401

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Delaying and reversing frailty: a systematic review of primary care interventions

Open access
Travers, John, Romero-Ortuno, Roman, Bailey, Jade, Cooney, Marie-Therese·2019·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

Background: Recommendations for routine frailty screening in general practice are increasing as frailty prevalence grows. In England, frailty identification became a contractual requirement in 2017. However, there is little guidance on the most effective and practical interventions once frailty has been identified. Aim: To assess the comparative effectiveness and ease of implementation of frailty interventions in primary care. Design and setting: A systematic review of frailty interventions in primary care. Method: Scientific databases were searched from inception to May 2017 for randomised controlled trials or cohort studies with control groups on primary care frailty interventions. Screening methods, interventions, and outcomes were analysed in included studies. Effectiveness was scored in terms of change of frailty status or frailty indicators and ease of implementation in terms of human resources, marginal costs, and time requirements. Results: A total of 925 studies satisfied search criteria and 46 were included. There were 15 690 participants (median study size was 160 participants). Studies reflected a broad heterogeneity. There were 17 different frailty screening methods. Of the frailty interventions, 23 involved physical activity and other interventions involved health education, nutrition supplementation, home visits, hormone supplementation, and counselling. A significant improvement of frailty status was demonstrated in 71% (n= 10) of studies and of frailty indicators in 69% (n=22) of studies where measured. Interventions with both muscle strength training and protein supplementation were consistently placed highest for effectiveness and ease of implementation. Conclusion: A combination of muscle strength training and protein supplementation was the most effective intervention to delay or reverse frailty and the easiest to implement in primary care. A map of interventions was created that can be used to inform choices for managing 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3399/bjgp18x700241

Cites

64 of 64 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 64 references

Cited by

See all 401

Metadata

Authors
Travers, J., Romero-Ortuno, R., Bailey, J., & Cooney, M.-T.
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2018-12-03
Volume
69
Issue
678
Pages
e61-e69
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2903235642
Cited by
401
References
64
FWCI
2.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Delaying and reversing frailty: a systematic review of primary care interventions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3399/bjgp18x700241
The paper
Travers, J., Romero-Ortuno, R., Bailey, J., & Cooney, M.-T. (2019). Delaying and reversing frailty: a systematic review of primary care interventions. British Journal of General Practice. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18x700241

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.