In this overview, we aimed at providing a comprehensive catalogue of frailty measures, reviewing evidence on their validity and reliability, and quantifying the use of each measure by investigators other than the originators.
None of the studies reviewed used frailty status as an outcome measure [ 4].
The aim of this overview is three-fold: 1) provide a comprehensive catalogue of existing frailty measures; 2) review evidence on the validity and reliability of these measures; and 3) quantify the popularity of each frailty measure by investigators other than the originators.
This is the largest reported study reviewing frailty and the need for organ supports and outcomes in complex orthopaedic surgery.
Other distinct conceptual models of frailty have also been proposed, which are extensively reviewed elsewhere and will not be discussed here.
Nevertheless, few publications have systematically reviewed the quality of the evidence on frailty [ 8].
We reviewed patients for a further 16 months to see whether frailty impacts on care [ 2].
Therefore, we systematically searched the ClinicalTrials.gov registry in order to review the frailty intervention trials that had been actively initiated or completed but not yet published.
We reviewed HES for ICD-10 diagnostic codes that could be grouped for frailty syndromes (see online supplementary appendix 1) in all 20 fields.
All of the reviewed studies apart from one [ 36] showed an increase in muscle strength and muscle extension, along with improvements in mobility, balance, functional capacity, and frailty status, suggesting positive effects on frailty syndrome.
As there is no widely accepted definition of frailty, the CIFA review strategies were inclusive and attempted to retrieve and examine all the literature relevant to the concept of frailty, rather than being limited to any single definition or model.
