Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct 7;20(1):393.
doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01801-7.

A scoping review of the Clinical Frailty Scale

Sophie Church  1   2 , Emily Rogers  1 , Kenneth Rockwood  1   3 , Olga Theou  4   5   6
Affiliations

A scoping review of the Clinical Frailty Scale

Sophie Church et al. BMC Geriatr. .

Abstract

Background: Frailty is increasingly recognized as an important construct which has health implications for older adults. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a judgement-based frailty tool that evaluates specific domains including comorbidity, function, and cognition to generate a frailty score ranging from 1 (very fit) to 9 (terminally ill). The aim of this scoping review is to identify and document the nature and extent of research evidence related to the CFS.

Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify original studies that used the Clinical Frailty Scale. Medline OVID, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and Embase were searched from January 2005 to March 2017. Articles were screened by two independent reviewers. Data extracted included publication date, setting, demographics, purpose of CFS assessment, and outcomes associated with CFS score.

Results: Our search yielded 1688 articles of which 183 studies were included. Overall, 62% of studies were conducted after 2015 and 63% of the studies measured the CFS in hospitalized patients. The association of the CFS with an outcome was examined 526 times; CFS was predictive in 74% of the cases. Mortality was the most common outcome examined with CFS being predictive 87% of the time. CFS was associated with comorbidity 73% of the time, complications 100%, length of stay 75%, falls 71%, cognition 94%, and function 91%. The CFS was associated with other frailty scores 94% of the time.

Conclusions: This scoping review revealed that the CFS has been widely used in multiple settings. The association of CFS score with clinical outcomes highlights its utility in the care of the aging population.

Keywords: Aging; Clinical Frailty Scale; Frail elderly; Frailty; Scoping review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

KR is President and Chief Science Officer of DGI Clinical, which in the last five years has contracts with pharma and device manufacturers on individualized outcome measurement. In 2017 he attended an advisory board meeting with Lundbeck. Otherwise any personal fees are for invited guest lectures and academic symposia, received directly from event organizers, chiefly for presentations on frailty. He is Associate Director of the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging, which is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and with additional funding from the Alzheimer Society of Canada and several other charities, as well as, in its first phase (2013–2018), from Pfizer Canada and Sanofi Canada. He receives career support from the Dalhousie Medical Research Foundation as the Kathryn Allen Weldon Professor of Alzheimer Research, and research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the QEII Health Science Centre Foundation, the Capital Health Research Fund and the Fountain Family Innovation Fund of the QEII Health Science Centre Foundation. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Scoping review flow chart
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Proportion of studies that took place on various hospital units/wards
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Association of CFS with most frequent outcomes. *Note that variables such as “cognition” and “function” if not otherwise specified represent combined cross-sectional and longitudinal outcomes. “Current” indicates cross-sectional outcomes only and “Longitudinal” indicates longitudinal outcomes only
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. He W, Goodkind D, Kowal PR. An aging world: 2015. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau; 2016.
    1. Theou O, Rockwood K. Should frailty status always be considered when treating the elderly patient? Aging Health. 2012;8(3):261–271. doi: 10.2217/ahe.12.8. - DOI
    1. Rockwood K, Fox RA, Stolee P, Robertson D, Beattie BL. Frailty in elderly people: an evolving concept. CMAJ. 1994;150(4):489. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S, Rikkert MO, Rockwood K. Frailty in elderly people. Lancet. 2013;381(9868):752–762. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(12)62167-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Morley JE, Vellas B, Kan GAV, et al. Frailty consensus: a call to action. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14(6):392–397. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types