A comparison of two approaches to measuring frailty in elderly people.

By Kenneth Rockwood, M. Andrew, Arnold Mitnitski. The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences, 2007

1,230 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Accumulating deficits model of frailty and postoperative mortality and morbidity: its application to a national database. (2013, methodology): “[11] previously found that any 10 items on the CSHA-FI have a similar predictive value for frailty.”
The Frailty Syndrome: Definition and Natural History (2011, background): “frailty phenotype, the FI is a more sensitive predictor of adverse health outcomes because of its finer graded risk scale and its robustness in clinical inferences with regard to the number and actual composition of the items in it.(8)”
Association of frailty with survival: a systematic literature review. (2013, neutral): “(2008), Song et al. (2010), Tennstedt et al.”
Prevalence and 10‐Year Outcomes of Frailty in Older Adults in Relation to Deficit Accumulation (2010, result): “These cut points accord with prior reports.(24,37)”
Immunosenescence and Inflamm-Aging As Two Sides of the Same Coin: Friends or Foes? (2018, background): “The definition of frailty is already controversial as two main designations exist, namely the phenotypic definition (116) and the multiple composite burden (deficit accumulation) (117).”
A standard procedure for creating a frailty index (2008, methodology): “Here, as in some earlier studies, [7,19,31] we have selected variables at random (bootstrapping) from a list of eligible variables to make up the Frailty Index and have again shown that the results are insensitive to the precise composition of the index.”