ReviewCritical care (London, England)2026
Simulation study of frailty as a baseline confounder: the need to improve reporting intensive care trials.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFrailty is an independent predictor of worse outcomes after critical illness, yet intensive care trials almost invariably omit reporting frailty distribution in the investigated cohort. This study investigated the magnitude and prevalence of imbalanced baseline distribution in frailty using the ordinal Clinical Frailty Scale that could contribute to clinically significant differences in apparent mortality.
methodsA database of 6968 patients admitted to intensive care unit was used to simulate enrolment of between 100 and up to 1000 patients into each of the control and interventional arms of a hypothetical two-arm trial. Both 1:1 randomisation and block randomisation using permuted blocks of variable sizes were simulated 100 times and referred to as 'trials'. The observed relationship between the Clinical Frailty Scale and observed in-hospital mortality was used to determine thresholds for frailty imbalance sufficient to generate ≥2% and ≥5% differences in mortality. The proportions of 'trials' meeting these criteria are reported as percentages and 95%CI.
resultsImbalanced frailty generated a ≥2% mortality difference in 36 [95%CI 31-42]% of 'trials' with 100 patients/arm that was reduced to 9 [95%CI 6-13]% of 'trials' with 400 patients/arm. An imbalance in frailty associated with a ≥5% mortality difference occurred in 3 [95%CI 1-5]% of 'trials' with 100 patients/arm and reduced to 0% [95%CI 0-1.3]% in all 'trials' using larger sample sizes. 'Trials' with a binary balance between non-frail vs frail patients still retained an ordinal frailty imbalance to generate a ≥2% mortality difference in 10 [95%CI 7-14]% with 100 patients/arm. Block randomisation only reduced the proportion of 'trials' with mortality differences related to frailty to a minor and variable degree.
conclusionsBaseline distributional imbalance in frailty may create clinically significant differences in apparent mortality estimates. The hypothesis-generating findings in this study suggest that intensive care trials should report complete frailty distributions and consider frailty in study designs and analyses.
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.