↓ Skip to main content

What do we know about frailty in the acute care setting? A scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 1,719)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
2 blogs
133 tweeters
1 Facebook page


50 Dimensions

Readers on

136 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
What do we know about frailty in the acute care setting? A scoping review
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12877-018-0823-2
Pubmed ID

Olga Theou, Emma Squires, Kayla Mallery, Jacques S. Lee, Sherri Fay, Judah Goldstein, Joshua J. Armstrong, Kenneth Rockwood


The ability of acute care providers to cope with the influx of frail older patients is increasingly stressed, and changes need to be made to improve care provided to older adults. Our purpose was to conduct a scoping review to map and synthesize the literature addressing frailty in the acute care setting in order to understand how to tackle this challenge. We also aimed to highlight the current gaps in frailty research. This scoping review included original research articles with acutely-ill Emergency Medical Services (EMS) or hospitalized older patients who were identified as frail by the authors. We searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Eric, and Cochrane from January 2000 to September 2015. Our database search initially resulted in 8658 articles and 617 were eligible. In 67% of the articles the authors identified their participants as frail but did not report on how they measured frailty. Among the 204 articles that did measure frailty, the most common disciplines were geriatrics (14%), emergency department (14%), and general medicine (11%). In total, 89 measures were used. This included 13 established tools, used in 51% of the articles, and 35 non-frailty tools, used in 24% of the articles. The most commonly used tools were the Clinical Frailty Scale, the Frailty Index, and the Frailty Phenotype (12% each). Most often (44%) researchers used frailty tools to predict adverse health outcomes. In 74% of the cases frailty predicted the outcome examined, typically mortality and length of stay. Most studies (83%) were conducted in non-geriatric disciplines and two thirds of the articles identified participants as frail without measuring frailty. There was great variability in tools used and more recently published studies were more likely to use established frailty tools. Overall, frailty appears to be a good predictor of adverse health outcomes. For frailty to be implemented in clinical practice frailty tools should help formulate the care plan and improve shared decision making. How this will happen has yet to be determined.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 133 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 136 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 18%
Researcher 19 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Other 36 26%
Unknown 22 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 16%
Psychology 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 35 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 104. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 April 2019.
All research outputs
of 15,558,310 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
of 1,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 279,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,558,310 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,719 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them