Evidence mapPaperPMID 38528284Full record

SynthesisEuropean geriatric medicine2024

The prevalence of oral frailty among older adults: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.

Tao Li, Yinli Shen, Yingjie Leng, You Zeng, Long Li, Zijiang Yang, Siyu Wang, Yunlan Jiang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European geriatric medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tao LiDepartment of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Yinli ShenAffiliated Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, China.
Yingjie LengDepartment of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
You ZengDepartment of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Long LiDepartment of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Zijiang YangDepartment of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Siyu WangDepartment of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Yunlan JiangAffiliated Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, China. jiangyl1120@163.com.
Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, oral frailty was proposed as a new concept regarding dental and oral health in older adults. Poor oral health is linked to preserving general health and has become a geriatric public health problem that deeply affects healthy aging. While in present, evidence on the prevalence associated with oral frailty in older adults remains unclear.

objectiveTo systematically evaluate the prevalence of oral frailty among older adults, stratified by relevant factors such as gender, source, study design, region, and the evaluation scales for oral frailty and provide an evidence-based foundation for healthcare professionals and policymakers to formulate relevant measures.

methodsTen electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to September 2023, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Database (Sinomed), Weipu Database, and Wanfang database. Based on the Stata 15.0 software package, a random effect model was used to calculate the pooled prevalence of oral frailty among older adults. In addition, sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression were conducted based on different study characteristics to detect heterogeneity sources. Funnel plots, Begg's and Egger's tests were used to evaluate the publication bias.

resultsEighteen studies with a total of 12,932 older adults were included for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of oral frailty and oral pre-frailty was 24% (95% CI: 20-28%) and 57% (95% CI: 52-61%) respectively. Based on different assessment tools of oral frailty, the pooled prevalence of oral frailty was higher when using the OFI-8 scale (44.1%; 95% CI: 35.4-52.8%) than the OFI-6 scale (18.3%; 95% CI: 15.8-20.8%) or OF checklist (22.1%; 95% CI: 17.4-26.7%). The prevalence of oral frailty was higher among older adults in females (23.8%; 95% CI: 18.4-29.2%), hospital settings (31%, 95% CI: 16.6-45.5%), cross-sectional design (26.7%, 95% CI: 19.2-34.2%), and China (45.9%, 95% CI: 34.4-57.3%).

conclusionsOur study showed that oral frailty was common among older adults and various characteristics may affect its prevalence. Thus, healthcare professionals and policymakers should take oral frailty seriously in clinical practice and program planning and develop more preventive measures for oral frailty among older adults.

Indexed as

Frail ElderlyFrailtyOral HealthAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansMalePrevalenceMeta-analysisOlder adultsOral frailtyPrevalenceSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38528284
OpenAlexW4393164947

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.