Perioperative medicine & outcomes
Agreement between patient self-reported and assessor-rated frailty using the Clinical Frailty Scale
Primary result · Agreement between self-rated and assessor-rated CFSResult — go to the resultMean difference 0.45 points 95% CI 0.39–0.52Authors' conclusion
Patients self-report their frailty status using the CFS with moderate agreement to a trained frailty assessor. Self-reported and assessor-rated scores had similar predictive capability for postoperative death or new disability.
Study context
- Population
- People ≥65 yr having elective noncardiac surgery
- Participants
- 531 people
- Comparison
- Patient self-reported vs trained assessor-rated Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS)
- Primary endpoint
- Agreement between self-reported and assessor-rated CFS (weighted kappa; Cohen's kappa for CFS≥4)
- Follow-up
- Preoperatively
Methodological detailsagreement study, multicentre
- Agreement study
- Multicentre
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Agreement between self-rated and assessor-rated CFS
Mean difference
0.45 points
95% CI 0.39–0.52
P < 0.001
Assessor-rated vs Self-rated
mean difference 0.45 points (95% CI 0.39–0.52); P < 0.001
- Weighted kappa, ordinal scale (moderate agreement)
- 0.58 (95% CI 0.53-0.63)
- Cohen's kappa, dichotomised CFS≥4 (moderate agreement)
- 0.61 (95% CI 0.54-0.68)
Further findings
| Outcome | C-statistic difference (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|
| Discrimination for death or new disability · 90 days after surgeryPaired ROC curve analysis | 0.010 (−0.072 to 0.092) | P = 0.81 |
Discrimination for death or new disability · 90 days after surgery
- No difference in discriminative capability
Original publication
Agreement between patient self-reported and assessor-rated frailty using the Clinical Frailty Scale. Br J Anaesth. Published 22 July 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →