ArticleGeriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation2026
Predictive Performance of Frailty Indices for Complications and Functional Recovery After Distal Radius Fracture Surgery in Patients Aged ≥65 years.
Article in Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Re: Methodological Considerations in Frailty Assessment for Distal Radius Fracture Surgery.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Distal radius fractures (DRFs) are the most common upper-extremity fractures in older adults. Frailty may modulate postoperative risk, but the comparative prognostic value of widely used frailty indices in DRF surgery is unclear. Objective: To compare the 5-item modified Frailty Index (mFI-5), Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) for predicting complications and functional outcomes after DRF surgery in patients ≥65 years, and to assess whether machine learning (ML) enhances risk stratification. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 562 patients (mean age 75.1±4.9 years; 71.7% female) undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (67.1%), closed reduction percutaneous pinning (21.2%), or external fixation (11.7%), with ≥12 months of follow-up. Preoperative mFI-5, CFS, and CCI were collected. The primary endpoint was any postoperative complication (composite of surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, loss of reduction, tendon injury, nonunion/malunion, hardware failure, reoperation, 30-/90-day readmission, venous thromboembolism, and complex regional pain syndrome). Functional outcomes were DASH, PRWE, grip strength, and return to activities of daily living (ADLs). Logistic and Cox regression were used. Exploratory ML models (random forest, gradient boosting) employed 5-fold cross-validation, an 80/20 train-test split, and isotonic calibration. Results: Over 17.9±4.5 months, 195 of 562 patients (34.8%) developed ≥1 complication. mFI-5 ≥2 was associated with higher complication rates (38.2% vs 31.9%) and worse 6-month disability (DASH 55.4 vs 44.5; PRWE 47.9 vs 36.4; all p<0.001). CFS ≥4 predicted lower 12-month grip strength recovery (67.8% vs 74.1%) and reduced ADL return (65.9% vs 78.6%). Discrimination for complications was modest (AUCs: mFI-5 0.552; CFS 0.534; CCI 0.507). ML substantially improved performance (gradient boosting AUC 0.878; random forest AUC 0.812) with superior calibration. Conclusions: mFI-5, CFS, and CCI are associated with postoperative complications and functional recovery after DRF surgery but have limited individual discriminative power. ML-based multivariable models achieve markedly better risk stratification and may support more accurate preoperative counseling and personalized perioperative management.
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.