ArticleJournal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)2025
Approaches to optimally target frailty screening among people with HIV in clinical care: findings from the Centers for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems (CNICS).
Article in Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of four frailty scores to predict adverse health events and mortality in people living with HIV aged 70 years and more (ANRS EP 66 SEPTAVIH study).HIV medicine · 2026Article
- Prediction Models for Frailty in People Living With HIV: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prognostic Models.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Introducing the WHO ICOPE approach into HIV care: A perspective on healthy ageing in people living with HIV.JAR life · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFrailty screening in HIV care has been recommended, however, screening adds burden to busy clinics. We compared criteria that predict concurrent frailty to identify approaches to optimally target frailty screening.
methodsThe development cohort included people with HIV (PWH) at six U.S. sites. Frailty was assessed based on four components of a modified Fried phenotype: fatigue, unintentional weight loss, low mobility, and poor physical activity. We evaluated demographic and clinical characteristics, comorbidities, and substance use as predictors of who should be screened using selection approaches for simple and complex frailty screening tools, including machine learning approaches. We compared discrimination and calibration including area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity in a validation cohort (7th site).
resultsAmong the 9,592 PWH in the development cohort, 11% were frail. AUC ranged from 0.52 for simple screening approaches such as age-based to 0.84 for complex approaches in the development and validation cohorts. Using an age cutoff >50 years reduced the percentage of PWH needing screening by over half but also reduced the sensitivity to 58% in the validation cohort. Complex approaches required 47% to be screened and had a sensitivity of 89%.
conclusionsAge-based frailty screening approaches (e.g., >50 years) miss many frail PWH. Complex tools had marginally better testing characteristics but would be more difficult to implement in clinical care. Simple targeted screening based on three characteristics (age, gender, and depressive symptoms) identified 89% of frail PWH and reduced the number who needed screened by 52%.
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.