ArticleTransplantation direct2026
Comparison of Multiple Frailty Scoring Metrics in Renal Transplant Candidates: A Large Single-center Cohort Study.
Article in Transplantation direct, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pretransplant patients are not required to undergo objective frailty testing, although current listing and allocation policies do record functional metrics. Multiple different metrics exist for assessing frailty. Methods: We investigated different frailty metrics in patients presenting for renal transplant evaluation. Four hundred thirty patients underwent both cross-sectional imaging and retrospective chart review to calculate a psoas muscle area (PMA) and modified Frailty Risk Score (FRS), respectively. Of these patients, 264 were also evaluated using the Fried frailty phenotype (FFP). Expected Posttransplant Survival scores for posttransplant patients were calculated. Results: In total, 220 (52.2%) patients were considered frail by at least 1 metric. Of evaluated patients 8.3%, 30.7%, and 24.9% were frail by FFP, FRS, and PMA respectively, compared with 6.6%, 26.4%, and 24.0% of listed patients who were frail by FFP, FRS, and PMA respectively. PMA and FRS identified more frail patients compared with FFP ( Conclusions: Ultimately, patients successfully listed for transplant did not vary in frailty metrics from those who were not listed. These findings suggest that standardized metrics are needed for the evaluation and listing of patients.
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.