Meta-analysis shows high prevalence of oral frailty at 51% in hospitalized patients, indicating a need for targeted screening in high-risk groups such as those with cancer.
Background Oral frailty, characterized by reduced oral function, represents a significant yet understudied issue among hospitalized patients, affecting treatment outcomes. Objective To determine the prevalence of oral frailty in hospitalized patients and identify high-risk groups through stratified analyses. Methods Nine databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CNKI, SinoMed, VIP, and Wanfang, were systematically searched from their inception to July 2025. Data analysis was conducted using Stata 15.0 software, employing a random-effects model to estimate overall prevalence. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were performed to identify sources of heterogeneity. Results This meta-analysis included 27 studies involving 11,575 hospitalized patients. The overall prevalence of oral frailty was found to be 51% (95% CI: 47–55%). Among different disease groups, patients with cancer had the highest prevalence (62, 95% CI: 57–66%), while patients with renal disease had the lowest (39, 95% CI: 32–47%). Regional analysis indicated a prevalence of 52% (95% CI: 48–56%) among patients in mainland China, and 45% (95% CI: 37–53%) in other regions. Cross-sectional studies reported a prevalence of 52% (95% CI: 48–57%), whereas cohort studies reported 42% (95% CI: 36–48%). Disease type accounted for substantial heterogeneity (I 2 = 94.35%). No publication bias was detected. Conclusion The findings suggest that oral frailty is highly prevalent among hospitalized patients, with prevalence varying by disease type. Therefore, establishing specific screening programs for oral frailty and integrating professional oral care into routine medical treatment are recommended to mitigate the risk of complications. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ , registration no. CRD420251107503.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jie et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: