Table 7.

Comparison of different frailty scales.

Scale	Strengths	Weaknesses
Cumulative deficit model	Easy and fast to perform; a continuous scoring system including 3 domains. (Physical, psychological, and social)	Complex to use because of its mathematical nature
Fried frailty phenotype	Predictive of adverse clinical outcome	Including physical testing; conducted in stable, mobile patients
Edmonton frailty scale	Moderately complex multidimensional scale; an independent predictor of unscheduled re-hospitalization	Including physical testing; conducted in stable, mobile patients
Gill frailty measure	Quick, precise, objective measurement; highly correlated with other functional tests in HF	Sensitive but not specific for frailty by most common cutoffs; limited to ambulatory patients; Score may be affected by the type of chair and assistive devices
Handgrip strength	Rapid, objective measurement; no ambulation required, safety	Heterogeneity in testing protocols; measurement tools not universally available