Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42421626›Full record

SynthesisJournal of diabetes research2026

Evaluation of the Risk Prediction Model for Frailty in Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Qing Chen, Meiling Yang, Mengmeng Chen, Chuyuan Miao, Zidan Wang, Joanne Wai Yee Chung

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of diabetes research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

6 authors.

Qing ChenSchool of Nursing, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, gzhmc.edu.cn.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3840-3442
Meiling YangSchool of Nursing, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, gzhmc.edu.cn.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5945-8808
Mengmeng ChenSchool of Nursing, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, gzhmc.edu.cn.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4589-9469
Chuyuan MiaoDepartment of Nursing, Shenzhen Nanshan People's Hospital, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1502-3099
Zidan WangSchool of Nursing, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China, ccmu.edu.cn.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5152-4384
Joanne Wai Yee ChungSchool of Nursing, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, gzhmc.edu.cn.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9884-9800

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrailty is highly prevalent among patients with diabetes and is associated with an increased risk of disability, hospitalization, and mortality. Although several frailty prediction models have been developed for this population, their methodological quality, predictive performance, and clinical applicability remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis was therefore conducted to comprehensively evaluate existing prediction models for frailty in patients with diabetes.

methodsPubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, China Biology Medicine Database (CBM), and China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) were searched for eligible prediction model studies from database inception to April 28, 2026. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality using the CHARMS checklist and the PROBAST tool. Random-effects or fixed-effect models were applied according to heterogeneity. Meta-analyses of pooled model discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]) and common predictors were performed using RevMan 5.4 and MedCalc 23.6.1 software.

resultsOf the 3492 identified articles, 19 studies were included, comprising a total of 36 prediction models. Sample sizes ranged from 152 to 1436 participants, and the AUC values varied from 0.703 to 0.975. The random forest model demonstrated the highest discriminative performance (AUC = 0.975). Frequently identified predictors included age, depression, activities of daily living (ADL), nutritional status, duration of diabetes, physical activity, polypharmacy, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), cognitive function, and marital status. All studies were judged to have a high risk of bias due to insufficient reporting of participants, predictors, outcomes, and analytical methods, although their overall applicability was considered high.

conclusionExisting frailty prediction models for patients with diabetes demonstrated good overall predictive performance and potential clinical utility. Nevertheless, substantial methodological limitations and a high risk of bias were identified across all included studies. Future model development should emphasize methodological rigor, external validation, and transparent reporting to improve reliability and facilitate clinical implementation.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusFrailtyHumansPrediction AlgorithmsRisk AssessmentRisk Factorsdiabetes mellitusfrailtyprediction modelssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID42421626
PMCPMC13347166

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.