SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022
The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) employment in the frailty assessment of patients suffering from Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs): A systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The association between the degree of frailty and the risk of hospital related adverse events in older acutely admitted patients.Age and ageing · 2026Observational
- Synthetic MRI Neuroimaging Correlates of Frailty: Correlations Between Frailty Scales and Brain Structural Integrity.Aging medicine (Milton (N.S.W)) · 2026Article
- Frailty and Cognitive Decline in Hospitalized Elderly Patients: Associations with Clinical and Laboratory Parameters.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- The prognostic value of Clinical Frailty Scale in COVID-19 pneumonia across different pandemic phases: a comparison between the first and the fourth wave.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a well-established tool that has been widely employed to assess patients' frailty status and to predict clinical outcomes in the acute phase of a disease, but more information is needed to define the implications that this tool have when dealing with Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs). Methods: An electronic literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases to identify studies employing the CFS to assess frailty in patients with NCDs. Findings: After database searching, article suitability evaluation, and studies' quality assessment, 43 studies were included in the systematic review. Researches were conducted mostly in Japan (37.5%), and half of the studies were focused on cardiovascular diseases (46.42%), followed by cancer (25.00%), and diabetes (10.71%). Simplicity (39.29%), efficacy (37.5%), and rapidity (16.07%) were the CFS characteristics mostly appreciated by the authors of the studies. The CFS-related results indicated that its scores were associated with patients' clinical outcomes (33.92%), with the presence of the disease (12.5%) and, with clinical decision making (10.71%). Furthermore, CFS resulted as a predictor of life expectancy in 23 studies (41.07%), clinical outcomes in 12 studies (21.43%), and hospital admissions/readmissions in 6 studies (10.71%). Discussion: CFS was found to be a well-established and useful tool to assess frailty in NCDs, too. It resulted to be related to the most important disease-related clinical characteristics and, thus, it should be always considered as an important step in the multidisciplinary evaluation of frail and chronic patients. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp? PROSPERO 2021, ID: CRD42021224214.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.