Evidence mapPaperPMID 41326997Full record

ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2025

Comparison of two electronic medical record-based frailty assessment tools and their association with adverse outcomes in older hospitalized patients with urgent admissions.

Benchuan Hao, Yifei Xu, Huimin Yang, Liangchen Li, Zhong Zhang, Huihui Xia, Dapeng Song, Chaosheng Du, Zhenzhen Yang, Bei Zhao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Benchuan Hao *Department of Cardiology, The Ninth Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100101, China.
Yifei Xu *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Huimin Yang *Department of Blood Transfusion, Jiangsu Province (Suqian) Hospital, Suqian, China.
Liangchen LiDepartment of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Navy Qingdao Special Service Recuperation Center, Qingdao, China.
Zhong ZhangDepartment of Cardiology, The Ninth Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100101, China.
Huihui XiaDepartment of Cardiology, The Ninth Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100101, China.
Dapeng SongDepartment of Cardiology, The Ninth Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100101, China.
Chaosheng DuDepartment of Cardiology, The Ninth Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100101, China.
Zhenzhen YangDepartment of Cardiology, The Ninth Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100101, China.
Bei ZhaoDepartment of Cardiology, The Ninth Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100101, China. zhaobei@301hospital.com.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrailty assessment is crucial for predicting outcomes in acute care settings; however, its application remains challenging. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate and compare two electronic medical record-based tools-the Canadian Institute for Health Information Hospital Frailty Risk Measure (CIHI-HFRM) and the United Kingdom Hospital Frailty Risk Score (UK-HFRS)-in older patients requiring urgent admission.

methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed 35,564 patients aged 65 or older from the MIMIC-IV 2.0 database. Frailty was assessed using CIHI-HFRM and UK-HFRS. Primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, one-year post-discharge mortality, post-discharge care needs, timely hospital discharge, and one-year readmission rates. Logistic regression, Cox regression, and competing risk models were used for analysis.

resultsThe CIHI-HFRM and UK-HFRS were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality [odds ratio (OR) per point: CIHI-HFRM 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.13); UK-HFRS 1.06 (95% CI 1.05-1.07)] and one-year post-discharge mortality [hazard ratio (HR) per point: CIHI-HFRM 1.08 (95% CI 1.06-1.09); UK-HFRS 1.05 (95% CI 1.04-1.05)]. Both measures were associated with prolonged hospital stays and post-discharge care needs, while only CIHI-HFRM was linked to one-year readmission risk.

conclusionThe CIHI-HFRM and UK-HFRS effectively stratify adverse outcomes risk in older patients requiring urgent admission. They may be considered alongside traditional measures as part of a pragmatic multimodal pathway, which represents a potential direction for clinical application.

Indexed as

Adverse outcomeCanadian Institute for Health Information-Hospital Frailty Risk MeasureOlderUnited Kingdom-Hospital Frailty Risk ScoreUrgent admission

Identifiers

PMID41326997
PMCPMC12771739

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.