Evidence Hub

Prognostic accuracy of frailty & vulnerability screening in older ED patients: a systematic review & meta-analysis

Nai-Wen Ku, Yu-Chi Hsu, Jasmine Mudhur, L. Abrahamyan, C.-L. Tsai, A. Shabbir, Martine Puts

Innovation in aging, 2025

25 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Abstract Frailty is associated with increased mortality and morbidity in older adults, highlighting the need for effective screening in emergency departments (EDs). However, the optimal tool for predicting adverse outcomes remains uncertain. Therefore, our review’s question is: which frailty and vulnerability screening instrument has the highest prognostic accuracy for adverse outcomes in older adults visiting EDs? Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included patients aged ≥60 admitted to the ED, used frailty or vulnerability instruments, and reported sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). Databases searched until January 25, 2025, included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and CNKI. Study quality was assessed using the updated Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-texts. A meta-analysis was conducted for tools with consistent cutoffs in ≥ 4 studies. Sixty-seven papers described 62 studies using 40 screening instruments. The Identification of Seniors at Risk (ISAR) was the most frequently used (n = 25), followed by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) (n = 15) and the Triage Risk Screening Tool (TRST)(n = 11). Most instruments showed high sensitivity but low specificity. Meta-analysis was feasible for ISAR and TRST. ISAR’s pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for in-hospital mortality were 92% (95% CI, 88-95), 26% (95% CI, 21-33), and 0.82. For ED revisits, ISAR’s AUC was…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 25 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free