Randomized trials
Interdisciplinary frailty RCT
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
A 12-month multifactorial interdisciplinary program reduced frailty prevalence and improved mobility versus usual care in frail older adults in Sydney.
Study at a glance
- Design
- RCT — Single-center RCT; year-long multifactorial interdisciplinary intervention vs usual care
- N
- N=241 · Enrolled of 322 eligible (75%)
- Population
- Frail older adults in an Australian health system (mean age ~83)
- Outcome
- Frailty prevalence and SPPB mobility at 3 and 12 months
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
At 12 months, frailty prevalence was 14.7 percentage points lower with intervention (NNT ≈ 6.8) and SPPB mobility improved relative to controls; effects were clearer at 12 months than at 3 months.
Methodology
A single-center RCT randomized frail older adults to a year-long multifactorial interdisciplinary intervention (physiotherapy, nutrition, medical review as needed) or usual care, assessing frailty and SPPB at 3 and 12 months.
Limitations
Results are from one Australian health system and do not isolate which component drove benefit or guarantee mortality reduction.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Multiple studies in this library examine randomized trials with empirical patient or population outcomes rather than opinion alone.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
At 12 months, frailty prevalence was 14.7 percentage points lower with intervention (NNT ≈ 6.8) and SPPB mobility improved relative to controls; effects were clearer at 12 months than at 3 months.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Effect sizes and settings differ across randomized trials studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Effect sizes and settings differ across randomized trials studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.