Scoping review reveals electronic frailty index models enhance risk stratification in healthcare, suggesting variability in application across settings.
The electronic Frailty Index (eFI) is a cumulative deficit model that quantifies frailty by summing health-related deficits recorded in a patient’s electronic health record. This scoping review evaluated the emerging applications of eFI models, providing an overview of the current landscape. A comprehensive search of three databases identified peer-reviewed studies published between August 2020 and July 2025. Study characteristics, including purpose, sample characteristics, eFI model details, cut-off thresholds and outcome measures were extracted. A total of 80 studies were included. Most were conducted in the UK (n = 29, 36.2%), followed by the US (n = 23, 28.7%) and Australia (n = 6, 7.5%). The most common purpose was risk stratification (n = 40, 50%), followed by model development and validation (n = 26, 32.5%). The predominant model included 36 deficits (n = 35, 46.1%), followed by 54 deficits (n = 10, 13.2%) and 31 deficits (n = 8, 10.5%). By type, the Clegg-based eFI (36 deficits) was the most frequently used (42.5%), while the Pajewski-based eFI (45-59 deficits) accounted for 21.3% and the Veterans Affairs Frailty Index (VA-FI) or adaptations represented 7.5%. Among cut-off schemes, the four-level classification (Fit: 0-0.12, Mild: >0.12-0.24, Moderate: >0.24-0.36, Severe: >0.36) was most common (24 studies, 30%), followed by the simplified three-level scheme (14 studies, 18%). Mortality was the most frequently evaluated outcome (65%), followed by hospital-related utilization such as admissions, readmissions, length of stay and emergency visits (48%). These findings highlight the widespread adoption of eFI models for risk stratification and validation, with notable variability in deficit selection and model adaptation across settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Inga Wang (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: