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
. 2025 Apr 2;15(7):915.
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics15070915.

Sex Bias in Frailty Screening: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of PRISMA-7 and the Clinical Frailty Scale in Primary Care

Christian J Wiedermann  1 , Verena Barbieri  1 , Dietmar Ausserhofer  1 , Adolf Engl  1 , Giuliano Piccoliori  1 , Angelika Mahlknecht  1
Affiliations

Sex Bias in Frailty Screening: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of PRISMA-7 and the Clinical Frailty Scale in Primary Care

Christian J Wiedermann et al. Diagnostics (Basel). .

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Frailty screening is essential in primary care for the early identification of vulnerable older adults. PRISMA-7 is a widely used screening tool, but Item 2 ("Are you male?") introduces potential sex bias and overestimates frailty in men. PRISMA-6, a modified version that excludes Item 2, might provide a more equitable alternative. This study evaluates PRISMA-6's alignment with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and its impact on sex-specific frailty classification. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 142 general practices across South Tyrol, including 9190 general practice patients aged ≥75 years. Frailty was assessed using PRISMA-7, PRISMA-6, and the CFS. Correlations between tools were calculated using Kendall's Tau-b, whereas Fisher's z-test was used to compare differences in alignment. The frailty prevalence and odds ratios were stratified according to sex and age. Results: PRISMA-6 showed a stronger correlation with the CFS (τ = 0.492) than PRISMA-7 (τ = 0.308, z = -10.2, p < 0.001). This effect was pronounced in men (z = -9.8, p < 0.001), whereas no difference was observed in women (z = 0.00, p = 1.000). PRISMA-6 reduced the frailty detection rate in men and was more closely aligned with the CFS. Conclusions: PRISMA-6 demonstrated improved alignment with the CFS and reduced sex bias compared to PRISMA-7. However, its use as a screening tool for men requires prospective validation in diverse settings. PRISMA-6 shows promise as a reliable and equitable frailty screening tool and should be considered for use in future studies, particularly in primary care settings, while awaiting further prospective validation.

Keywords: Clinical Frailty Scale; PRISMA-6; PRISMA-7; frailty prevalence; frailty screening; frailty tools validation; older adults; primary care; sex bias.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A flowchart of GP participation and patient inclusion in the frailty screening and assessment process.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The distribution of frailty scores by sex across three assessment tools. Stacked bar plots showing the distribution of scores for PRISMA-7, PRISMA-6, and the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) among 9190 general practice patients aged ≥75 years, stratified by sex. Frailty thresholds: PRISMA-7 and PRISMA-6: score ≥ 3; CFS: score ≥ 5.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of frailty detection rates by tools. CFS, Clinical Frailty Scale.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Clegg A., Young J., Iliffe S., Rikkert M.O., Rockwood K. Frailty in Elderly People. Lancet. 2013;381:752–762. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62167-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Abbasi M., Rolfson D., Khera A.S., Dabravolskaj J., Dent E., Xia L. Identification and Management of Frailty in the Primary Care Setting. CMAJ. 2018;190:E1134–E1140. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.171509. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boreskie K.F., Hay J.L., Boreskie P.E., Arora R.C., Duhamel T.A. Frailty-Aware Care: Giving Value to Frailty Assessment across Different Healthcare Settings. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22:13. doi: 10.1186/s12877-021-02722-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Travers J., Romero-Ortuno R., Bailey J., Cooney M.-T. Delaying and Reversing Frailty: A Systematic Review of Primary Care Interventions. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2019;69:e61–e69. doi: 10.3399/bjgp18X700241. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ruiz J.G., Dent E., Morley J.E., Merchant R.A., Beilby J., Beard J., Tripathy C., Sorin M., Andrieu S., Aprahamian I., et al. Screening for and Managing the Person with Frailty in Primary Care: ICFSR Consensus Guidelines. J. Nutr. Health Aging. 2020;24:920–927. doi: 10.1007/s12603-020-1498-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources