Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34866147›Full record

SynthesisThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2021

The FRAIL-NH Scale: Systematic Review of the Use, Validity and Adaptations for Frailty Screening in Nursing Homes.

S J Liau, S Lalic, R Visvanathan, L A Dowd, J S Bell

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Multidisciplinary Allied Health Reablement Model of Care for Older People in Residential Aged Care and Community Settings: Mixed-Methods Evaluation.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S J LiauShin J. Liau, Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, 407 Royal Parade, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. E-mail: shin.liau@monash.edu.
S Lalic
R Visvanathan
L A Dowd
J S Bell
Monash University · AUNational Health and Medical Research Council · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate frailty prevalence, cross-sectional associations, predictive validity, concurrent validity, and cross-cultural adaptations of the FRAIL-NH scale.

designSystematic review. SETTING AND

participantsFrail residents living in nursing homes.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 2015 to June 2021 for primary studies that used the FRAIL-NH scale, irrespective of study designs and publication language.

resultsOverall, 40 studies conducted across 20 countries utilized the FRAIL-NH scale; majority in Australia (n=14), followed by China (n=6), United States (n=3), and Spain (n=3). The scale has been translated and back-translated into Brazilian Portuguese, Chinese, and Japanese. Various cut-offs have been used, with ≥2 and ≥6 being the most common cut-offs for frail and most frail, respectively. When defined using these cut-offs, frailty prevalence varied from 15.1-79.5% (frail) to 28.5-75.0% (most frail). FRAIL-NH predicted falls (n=2), hospitalization or length of stay (n=4), functional or cognitive decline (n=4), and mortality (n=9) over a median follow-up of 12 months. FRAIL-NH has been compared to 16 other scales, and was correlated with Fried's phenotype (FP), Frailty Index (FI), and FI-Lab. Four studies reported fair-to-moderate agreements between FRAIL-NH and FI, FP, and the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. Ten studies assessed the sensitivity and specificity of different FRAIL-NH cut-offs, with ≥8 having the highest sensitivity (94.1%) and specificity (82.8%) for classifying residents as frail based on FI, while two studies reported an optimal cut-off of ≥2 based on FI and FP, respectively.

conclusionIn seven years, the FRAIL-NH scale has been applied in 20 countries and adapted into three languages. Despite being applied with a range of cut-offs, FRAIL-NH was associated with higher care needs and demonstrated good agreement with other well-established but more complex scales. FRAIL-NH was predictive of adverse outcomes across different settings, highlighting its value in guiding care for frail residents in nursing homes.

Indexed as

FrailtyAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFrail ElderlyGeriatric AssessmentHumansNursing HomesFRAIL-NHfrail older adultsfrailtynursing homesresidential facilities

Identifiers

PMID34866147
PMCPMC8549594
OpenAlexW3210304173

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.