Layout 1 Multidimensional assessment in hospitalized elderly patients Eur J Transl Myol 35 (3) 13940, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13940 Among older adults, falls and instability contribute to the development of frailty, disability, and functional limitations. As the body ages, various systemic changes take place in its organs and tissues. These include a decline in activity levels, reduced flexibility, loss of nerve cells, thickening of blood vessel walls, and weakened muscle tone.1 Such changes contribute to different geriatric conditions, such as frailty and an increased risk of falls, causing fractures and need for surgical intervention. Muscular and neuromuscular changes that accompany aging directly affect older adults’ functional capacity, in- cluding movement speed and the balance among different muscle groups. A recent study examined the association between execution speed and myoelectric activity, reveal- ing temporal differences and imbalances between muscle groups that may compromise stability and increase fall risk.2 These findings underscore the importance of dy- namic and targeted assessments when implementing re- habilitation and prevention programs for the elderly population. Falls are a widespread issue among older adults, often leading to serious consequences, and should be a key con- cern for both clinicians and policymakers. A comprehen- sive systematic review and meta-analysis, encompassing 104 studies with a total sample of 36,740,590 individuals, revealed that the global prevalence of falls among older adults is 26.5%.3 One of the most dangerous consequences of falls is proximal femur fracture, very common among older adults and often result in considerable morbidity and disability.4 Data from the National Hospital Discharge records of the Italian Ministry of Health and the Italian In- Abstract Fracture-related hospitalizations are frequent in older adults, with recovery often extended. This study evaluated the prognostic utility of the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI), Handgrip Strength (HGS), Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) in predicting adverse outcomes—hospitalizations, falls, or mortality—after femoral fracture or total knee arthroplasty surgery. The methods adopted were MPI assessed frailty, SPPB measured physical performance, GDS identified depression, and HGS evaluated muscle strength. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves determined their predictive value for adverse outcomes. The study included 206 older adults (mean age 77.5, 79.6% female). At 6 months post- surgery, significant improvements were seen in SPPB (+4.35) and HGS (+1.36 kg), with notable gains among frail patients. MPI scores declined (-0.15), and Walking Test improved (+1.92). MPI showed the strongest predictive power (AUC 0.89). Higher MPI (HR 3.47) and lower HGS (HR 0.88) were significantly associated with mortality. Male sex also increased mortality risk (HR 5.99). MPI and HGS effectively predicted adverse outcomes over 6 months, supporting their use in risk stratification for older adults’ post-surgery for fractures or total knee arthroplasty surgery. Key Words: fracture-related hospitalizations, Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI), Handgrip Strength (HGS), Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). Eur J Transl Myol 35 (3) 13940, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13940 Observational study for multidimensional assessment in elderly patients hospitalized for post-fracture or elective surgery and functional rehabilitation Francesco Saverio Ragusa,1 Nicola Veronese,2 Alessandro D’Aleo,1 Ligia J. Dominguez,3 Pietro Cataldo,4 Mario Barbagallo1 1Geriatric Unit, Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy; 2Saint Camillus International University of Health Sciences, Rome, Italy; 3Department of Medicine and Surgery, Kore University of Enna, Enna, Italy; 4Department of Psychological, Pedagogical and Educational Sciences, Sport and Exercise Sciences Research Unit, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (CC BY-NC 4.0) which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. - 310 - Multidimensional assessment in hospitalized elderly patients Eur J Transl Myol 35 (3) 13940, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13940 stitute for Statistics indicated that hospitalizations for proximal femoral fractures rose in the last twenty years. The median age of affected patients was 83 years, with a significant majority being female (76.6%).5 Numerous multidimensional and physical performance as- sessments are thought to effectively gauge the risk of neg- ative outcomes, such as hospitalizations, falls and mortality in older people, and various research teams have explored how to combine these tests to develop compre- hensive evaluation tools for predicting negative outcomes in older patients hospitalised for post-fracture or elective surgical treatment. Tools to detect frailty, sarcopenia or depression, such as MPI, HGS, SPPB, Walking Test and GDS could play an important role. The importance of these tools was also confirmed by lit- erature, a previous Canadian study of 1,245 participants, revealed how HGS is a simple and effective tool to iden- tify patients at higher risk of mortality and protracted re- covery after cardiac surgery;6 a Japanese study of 331 older patients showed how participants in the low SPPB score group had a significantly higher rate of postopera- tive pulmonary complications;7 an Italian study of 1259 older patients admitted for hip fracture surgical treatment demonstrated how MPI is a reliable indicator of mortality and hospital readmission at 3, 6, and 12 months.8 The role of GDS in the prediction of negative outcomes was also confirmed by an Italian study of 240 older people, where a GDS score of 2 or higher is a significant indicator of di- minished quality of life and warrants a comprehensive evaluation of the patient’s mental health status.9 However, these studies did not examine how these tools apply dif- ferently to frail and robust individuals. Additionally, to our knowledge, no study in the literature has analysed multi- ple tools simultaneously while comparing their differences among frail, pre-frail, and robust individuals after surgery for femoral fractures or TKA (Total Knee Arthroplasty). Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess how these tools are applicable in a population classified as robust, pre-frail, and frail after surgical intervention of femoral fractures or TKA, and to explore their potential predictive role in adverse events such as hospitalizations, falls, or mortality. Materials and Methods Study population This study is based on data reached in Casa di Cura Clin- ica Latteri Valsalva, Palermo, Italy from July 2023 to Sep- tember 2024, data were collected in collaboration with medical doctors from the Geriatric Unit of Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics of University of Palermo. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee “Comi- tato Etico Locale Palermo 1” of Azienda Ospedaliera Uni- versitaria Policlinico (07/2023). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. For the aims of this re- search, we included only older people, i.e., men and women older than 60 years, who underwent surgery for femur fracture or placement of prosthetic knee, femur, or hip within the previous 5 days, hospitalized in the depart- ment of rehabilitation medicine. Data were gathered at baseline (0 months), as well as at 3 and 6 months. Patients were excluded from the study if they were younger than 60 years old, if they were unable to understand or provide informed consent, or if more than five days had passed since their surgical procedure at the time of recruitment. Exposure Patients who underwent the multidimensional assessment and physical/instrumental testing had undergone surgical procedures up to 5 days prior, including hip arthroplasty (right/left), femur surgery (right/left), knee arthroplasty (right/left), intramedullary nailing of the femur (right/left), hip and femur endoprosthesis (right/left), and revision of hip (right/left) and knee (right/left) prostheses. Outcomes Multidimensional prognostic index At hospital admission, to all older patients, the MPI de- rived from information obtained through a standard Com- prehensive Geriatric Assessment was administered. Briefly, the MPI includes (10): i) Activities of Daily Liv- ing (ADL) index, which defines the level of dependence/independence in six daily personal care ac- tivities (bathing, toileting, feeding, dressing, urine and bowel continence and transferring (in and out of bed or chair); ii) Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) considering eight activities that are more cognitively and physically demanding than ADL, i.e. managing finances, using the telephone, taking medications, shopping, using transportation, preparing meals, doing housework and washing; iii) Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ), a ten-item questionnaire investigating orien- tation, memory, attention, calculation, and language; iv) CIRS Comorbidity-Index , derived from Cumulative Ill- ness Rating Scale (CIRS) that uses a 5-point ordinal scale (score 1-5) to estimate the severity of pathology in each of 13 systems, including cardiac, vascular, respiratory, eye-ear-nose-throat, upper and lower gastrointestinal, he- patic, renal, genitourinary, musculoskeletal, skin disorder, nervous system, endocrine-metabolic and psychiatric be- havioral disorders. CIRS Comorbidity-Index (CI) repre- sents the number of categories with a score of 3 or more (referring only to the first 13 categories), maximum score obtainable is 13; v) Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA)- short form (SF), a brief questionnaire comprising anthro- pometric measurements combined with a questionnaire regarding loss of appetite, recent weight loss, mobility, acute distress, and neuropsychological problems; vi) Exton Smith Scale (ESS), a five items questionnaire de- termining physical and mental condition, activity, mobil- ity and incontinence, indicating the risk of pressure sores; vii) number of medications taken at the hospital dis- charge; viii) cohabitation status divided as living alone, in an institution, or with family members. For each domain, a tripartite hierarchy was used, i.e. 0 = no problems, 0.5 = minor problems, and 1 = major prob- lems, based on conventional cut-off points derived from the literature for each item.10 The sum of the calculated - 311 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/informed-consent Multidimensional assessment in hospitalized elderly patients Eur J Transl Myol 35 (3) 13940, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13940 scores from the eight domains was divided by eight to ob- tain a final MPI risk score ranging from 0 = no risk to 1 = higher risk of mortality.11 Traditionally, the division of MPI is made using three categories, i.e., MPI-1 (low risk of mortality, robustness) <0.33; MPI-2 (intermediate risk, pre-frailty) between 0.33 and 0.66; and MPI-3 (high risk, frailty) with an MPI value >0.66. The execution of MPI requires, in mean, 15 minutes.12 It is possible to download for free the software at the following address https://mul- tiplat-age.it/index.php/ en/tools. In The Delta MPI was also calculated as the difference be- tween baseline and 3 months, and between baseline and 6 months, considering a Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of 0.03, as indicated in the literature.13 Physical performance The Short Physical Performance Test (SPPB) was con- ducted at baseline, 3 and 6 months to evaluate the func- tional ability of the lower limbs.14 Each participant completed a 4-meter walk at their usual pace, a five-time sit-to-stand test, and three balance assessments (side-by- side stance, semi-tandem stance, and tandem stance). Be- fore each test, the experimenter provided a demonstration. A stopwatch was used to record the time for each task, and scores (ranging from 0 to 4 points) were assigned based on established criteria.14 The final score, ranging from 0 to 12, was obtained by summing the individual test scores. In this case as well, the difference in SPPB between base- line and 3 months, and between baseline and 6 months was calculated, considering a MCID of 1 point in the SPPB score, as indicated in the literature.15 The Walking Test was extracted from the SPPB and used as a tool by analysing the difference between baseline and 3 months, and between baseline and 6 months. An improvement of 1 point corresponds to an increase of 0.1 m/s, which is considered the minimal detectable change according to the most recent literature.16 Handgrip strength A digital dynamometer (KERN and Sohn GmbH) was used to measure handgrip strength, with all assessments carried out by the same examiner. Before the test, partic- ipants watched a demonstration and completed two prac- tice attempts. After a five-minute familiarization period, they stood upright with their arm, forearm, and wrist in a neutral position.17 They were then instructed to exert max- imum grip force for 5 seconds. The test was conducted three times using the dominant hand, with a one-minute rest between trials. Three values of HGS were recorded for statistical analysis, using the highest of these three re- sults. Similarly, a change in HGS of at least 2.9 kg be- tween baseline and 3 months, and between baseline and 6 months, was considered clinically significant, as sup- ported by the literature.18 Geriatric depression scale GDS was administered to participants to assess depressive symptoms and overall mental health. A score of ≥2 was used as a threshold to identify individuals at risk of poor quality of life. Data collection involved structured inter- views conducted by trained professionals.19 Participants characteristics The following variables were considered as potentially important covariates: sex, fractures as reason of hospital- ization and use of any antipsychotics/antidepressants con- sidered as categorical variable; age and length of stay, were considered as continuous variable (Table 1). Follow up MPI, GDS, SPPB, Walking Test, HGS and any negative events, such as death, falls or hospitalization, were gath- ered at baseline, as well as at 3 and 6 months. For 3- and 6-month follow-ups, patients were summoned by tele- phone and then went to the Clinica Latteri for repeat phys- ical and instrumental testing. Statistical analyses Means and Standard Deviations (SD) were used to de- scribe quantitative measures, whilst percentages and counts were used for categorical variables. Characteristics of the study participants at baseline were compared ac- cording to frailty status (robust, pre-frail, frail) using Chi- square tests for categorical variables, or Fisher’s exact test when the expected cell counts were <5. For continuous variables, one-way ANOVA was used, followed by Bon- ferroni post-hoc tests for multiple comparisons. Delta MPI, Delta HGS, and Delta walking speed were cal- culated as the difference between the mean values of each measure at baseline and at 3 or 6 months across the three groups. An ANOVA test was then performed to determine whether these differences were statistically significant, by frailty status at baseline. ROC curve of MPI, SPPB and HGS were performed to define the predictive value of negative outcomes (mortality, falls, hospitalizations) and De Long test20 for statistically compare the Area Under the Curve (AUC) of two ROC curves to determine whether one variable is significantly better than another in distinguishing between conditions (Table 2). The association between fractures, SPPB, any antipsy- chotics/antidepressant, sex (male), GDS, MPI, age, hand- grip strength, length of stay at baseline and all-cause mortality during the follow-up was explored by Cox pro- portional hazard models, estimating Hazard Ratios (HR) and 95 % Confidence Intervals (95 % CI). A preliminary univariate analysis was conducted for each variable, fol- lowed by a multivariate model including all predictors and relevant adjustment variables (e.g., age, sex, handgrip strength, MPI). We applied a p-value cutoff of 0.10 in the univariate analysis to select variables for inclusion in the multivariate model. Collinearity was assessed using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), and variables with VIF > 2 were excluded from the final model, except for adjust- ment variables, which were retained regardless of VIF. All statistical tests were two-tailed, and a p-value < 0.05 was statistically significant. All analyses were performed using RStudio. - 312 - https://multiplat-age.it/index.php/en/tools https://multiplat-age.it/index.php/en/tools Multidimensional assessment in hospitalized elderly patients Eur J Transl Myol 35 (3) 13940, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13940 - 313 - Table 1. Characteristics of patients included. Robust Pre frail Frail Overall p values N=13 (%) N=135 (%) N=58 (%) N=206 (%) Age Mean (SD) 71.4 (4.19) 76.3 (6.16) 81.9 (6.94) 77.5 (6.94) p<0.001 Sex F 9 (69.2) 106 (78.5) 49 (84.5) 164 (79.6) p=0.36 Fracture No 11 (84.6) 101 (74.8) 16 (27.6) 128 (62.1) p<0.001 Yes 2 (15.4) 34 (25.2) 42 (72.4) 78 (37.9) SPMSQ Mean (SD) Time 0 0.923 (0.760) 1.50 (1.12) 3.12 (2.21) 1.92 (1.67) p<0.001 EXSTON SMITH Mean (SD) Time 0 16.5 (1.20) 14.1 (2.26) 10.2 (2.08) 13.1 (2.90) p<0.001 ADL Mean (SD) Time 0 5.62 (0.768) 3.58 (1.51) 1.19 (1.02) 3.03 (1.84) p<0.001 IADL Mean (SD) Time 0 1.00 (0) 1.00 (0) 0.776 (0.421) 0.937 (0.244) p<0.001 CIRS Mean (SD) Time 0 3.69 (1.11) 4.48 (1.33) 4.86 (1.13) 4.54 (1.29) p<0.007 MEDICATIONS Mean (SD) Time 0 4.15 (1.41) 6.17 (2.66) 7.36 (2.27) 6.38 (2.60) p<0.001 MNA Mean (SD) Time 0 11.7 (0.630) 9.81 (1.98) 7.41 (2.04) 9.25 (2.30) p<0.001 Housing Family 13 (100) 89 (65.9) 16 (27.6) 118 (57.3) p<0.001 Community-dwelling 0 (0) 1 (0.7) 1 (1.7) 2 (1.0) Alone 0 (0) 45 (33.3) 41 (70.7) 86 (41.7) GDSmini Time 0 Absent 4 (30.8) 22 (16.3) 5 (8.6) 31 (15.0) P=0.002 Mild-moderate 8 (61.5) 81 (60.0) 26 (44.8) 115 (55.8) Severe 1 (7.7) 32 (23.7) 27 (46.6) 60 (29.1) Falls Yes 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (3.4) 2 (1.0) p=0.13 No 13 (100) 135 (100) 56 (96.6) 204 (99.0) Chair stand Mean (SD) 0 (0) 0.052 (0.283) 0 (0) 0.034 (0.230) p=0.30 Walking Test Mean (SD) 1.46 (0.660) 0.888 (0.923) 0.224 (0.531) 0.737 (0.885) p<0.001 Balance Mean (SD) Time 0 1.46 (0.877) 1.04 (0.883) 0.224 (0.497) 0.839 (0.885) p<0.001 SPPB Mean (SD) Time 0 2.92 (1.32) 1.97 (1.80) 0.448 (0.958) 1.60 (1.74) p<0.001 Any antipsychotics/antidepressants No 12 (92.3) 110 (81.5) 39 (67.2) 161 (78.2) p=0.04 Yes 1 (7.7) 25 (18.5) 19 (32.8) 45 (21.8) Mean handgrip Mean (SD) 24.5 (7.10) 18.3 (6.06) 13.1 (7.28) 17.2 (7.11) p<0.001 Lenght of stay Mean (SD) 14.2 (3.63) 17.4 (3.99) 20.4 (5.49) 18.0 (4.74) p<0.001 Multidimensional assessment in hospitalized elderly patients Eur J Transl Myol 35 (3) 13940, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13940 Results Out of 235 initially screened patients, 206 older adults (mean age 77.5 years, 79.6% female) were included. The 29 excluded participants either had severe dementia or were unable to provide informed consent, with no care- giver available to assist. At baseline, the average MPI score was 0.57 (0.15). Only 6.4% of patients were classi- fied as robust (MPI <0.33), while 65.3% were pre-frail (MPI 0.33–0.66) and 28.3% frail (MPI >0.66). Frail pa- tients were significantly older, had higher fracture inci- dence, longer hospital stays, and lower scores in HGS and SPPB, especially in balance and Walking Test (all p<0.001) (Table 1). We assessed changes in HGS, MPI, SPPB, and Walking Test from baseline to 3 and 6 months (Supplementary Table 1). SPPB scores significantly improved by 2.94 points at 3 months and 4.35 points at 6 months (p<0.001 for all). All groups showed at least a 1-point improvement, considered clinically meaningful (Figure 1).14 HGS im- proved significantly: +1.16 kg at 3 months (p=0.008) and +1.36 kg at 6 months (p<0.001). Notably, only the frail group showed an average gain of ≥2.9 kg, a threshold rec- ognized as clinically relevant in the literature (Figure 2).17 Delta-MPI scores significantly decreased over time: by 0.14 at 3 months and 0.15 at 6 months (p<0.001 for all). All patient groups (robust, pre-frail, frail) had a reduction - 314 - Table 2. De Long test for ROC curves comparison. Variables Lower 95% CI Upper 95% CI p values MPI SPPB 0.8914141 0.79 0.02 0.17 0.009 MPI Strenght 0.8914141 0.78 0.10 0.20 0.02 MPI GDS 0.8914141 0.76 0.02 0.21 0.01 SPPB Strenght 0.7910534 0.78 -0,1 0.11 0.86 SPPB GDS 0.7910534 0.76 -0,06 0.11 0.63 Strenght GDS 0.7815296 0.76 -0,08 0.11 0.80 Figure 1. Comparison of delta SPPB between MPI groups time 0-3-6 months. Figure 2. Comparison of delt handgrip strenght between MPI groups time 0-3-6 months. Multidimensional assessment in hospitalized elderly patients Eur J Transl Myol 35 (3) 13940, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13940 of at least 0.03, which is considered meaningful (Figure 3).12 Delta- Walking Test speed also improved signifi- cantly: +1.43 points at 3 months and +1.92 at 6 months (p<0.001 for all). All robust patients improved by ≥1 point at both follow-ups (equivalent to a 0.1 m/s increase), while not all pre-frail and frail patients reached this threshold (Figure 4). Supplementary Table 1 reported all the Delta for SPPB, MPI, Handgrip strength, Walking Test between baseline and 3 or 6 months. The study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of these tools in predicting adverse outcomes (hospitalizations, falls, mortality) in patients categorized as robust, pre-frail, or frail after surgery. ROC curve analysis showed the MPI had the strongest predictive value (AUC 0.89), followed by SPPB (0.79), HGS (0.79), and GDS (0.77) (Figure 5). MPI showed significantly higher prognostic power than SPPB (p=0.009), HGS (p=0.02), and GDS (p=0.01). No significant differences were found among SPPB, HGS, and GDS. A multivariate model including all significant predictors and relevant adjustment variables revealed that male pa- tients had a significantly higher mortality risk compared to females (HR 5.99, 95% CI 1.23–31.94, p=0.03). Higher MPI scores were strongly associated with increased mor- tality risk (HR 3.47, 95% CI 1.76–6.79, p<0.001), while lower HGS scores were predictive of higher mortality (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79–0.98, p=0.02). No significant associa- tions were found with fractures, SPPB scores, use of an- tidepressants/antipsychotics, GDS, age, or hospital stay duration (Supplementary Table 2, Figure 6). Discussion To the best of our knowledge this is one the first study anal- ysing the role of multidimensional assessment and physi- cal/instrumental tests in older patients hospitalised for post-fracture or elective surgical treatment and subsequent functional rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to assess how these tools are applicable in a population classified as robust, pre-frail, and frail after surgical intervention of fe- moral fractures or TKA, and to explore their potential pre- dictive role in adverse events such as hospitalizations, falls, or mortality. At baseline, after surgical treatment, the mean MPI score was 0.57 and more than 90% of participants included were classified as pre-frail or frail. Patients identified as frail tended to be older, experienced more frequent fractures, stayed in the hospital for longer periods, and showed re- duced performance in HGS and the SPPB, particularly in balance and Walking Test. An American study of 652 older participants showed how HGS is directly associated with frailty: a 10-kg increase in baseline HGS was linked to a - 315 - Figure 3. Comparison of delta MPI between MPI groups time 0-3-6 months. Figure 4. Comparison of delta Walking Speed Test between MPI groups time 0-3-6 months. Multidimensional assessment in hospitalized elderly patients Eur J Transl Myol 35 (3) 13940, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13940 5% lower likelihood of losing IADL, an 8% lower chance of decreasing ADL, a 12% reduced risk of worsening dis- ability, compared to individuals with lower HGS (21). Also a Brazilian study of 786 community-dwelling older adults demonstrated how total SPPB score has good diagnostic accuracy to discriminate between non-frail and frail older adults, revealing the power of this tool for detecting frailty.22 Delta-MPI scores showed a notable decline over time, dropping by 0.14 at 3 months and 0.15 at 6 months, both statistically significant changes, overall showing a clinical improvement after rehabilitation. Each patient group (ro- bust, pre-frail, and frail) experienced a decrease of at least 0.03, a threshold regarded in the literature as clinically meaningful.12 The importance of delta-MPI was already analysed by a previous Italian study, between admission and discharge in 960 older patients, they showed how pa- tients identified as frail or pre-frail at admission showed a reduction in MPI score at discharge, with decreases of 0.03 and 0.07 respectively, while robust patients experi- enced a significant increase in MPI score of 0.04.12 Also differences in HGS have a crucial role, this is supported by findings from a Spanish study involving 110 older adults, which demonstrated that HGS, measured upon ad- mission to an Orthogeriatric Unit following a hip fracture, was strongly associated with the patients’ subsequent functional recovery.23 During the 6-month follow-up, the most significant im- provements consistently occurred between baseline and 3 months, with only modest gains between 3 and 6 months. Patients classified as robust showed the greatest improve- ments in SPPB, HGS, MPI, and Walking Test, followed by pre-frail and frail patients, respectively. Regaining preoper- ative functional status is crucial for restoring independence after surgery.24 Importantly, this aspect of recovery can be enhanced, a Singaporean study of 117 patients showed that frail patients undergoing colorectal surgery experienced better functional outcomes when they participated in pre- rehabilitation programs focused on physical conditioning, compared to those who received standard surgical care.25 The study sought to assess how effectively these tools could predict adverse outcomes, such as hospitalizations, falls, and mortality, in patients classified as robust, pre- frail, or frail after surgery. ROC curve analysis revealed that the MPI had the highest predictive accuracy, followed by the SPPB and HGS, and then the GDS. Last part of our - 316 - Figure 5. ROC curve of MPI, SPPB and handgrip predictive value of negative outcomes (deaths, falls, hospitalizations), (AUC MPI:0.8936335, AUC SPPB: 0.7932665, AUC Handgrip: 0.7860672, AUC GDS: 0.76904760 ). Figure 6. Graphical representation of Multivariate analysis. Multidimensional assessment in hospitalized elderly patients Eur J Transl Myol 35 (3) 13940, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13940 study confirmed the value of ROC analysis: higher MPI scores were strongly associated with increased mortality risk, while lower HGS scores were predictive of higher mortality. Adoption of exercise programs in water or on land repre- sents a fundamental component of rehabilitation for older adults after surgery or for fall prevention. Comparative studies have shown that while water exercise provides a low-impact environment ideal for individuals with reduced mobility, land-based training promotes improvements in strength and proprioception in more functional conditions.26 Therefore, a personalized choice between these modalities may optimize functional recovery and quality of life. Prognostic indices can be valuable tools for clinicians, helping guide more informed decision-making in the care of older adults. It is well recognized that overlooking a patient’s prognosis during clinical decisions can result in suboptimal or inappropriate care. All the previous studies analysed a single tool, without having a real comparison between different tools, as we did in our work. An Italian study of 1,140 participants revealed how MPI values are associated with higher mortality and other negative out- comes, such as institutionalization, rehospitalization, and access to home care services,27 or another Italian study of 87 patients, where participants with poor SPPB scores at hospital discharge had a greater risk of rehospitalization or death and a steeper increase in activity of daily living difficulty.28 MPI showed the highest predictive accuracy in our study, among the tools commonly used to evaluate frailty among older people. MPI predicts future health outcomes because it reflects a comprehensive deterioration in an older pa- tient’s overall health status. Many reasons could explain this result: MPI brings together various aspects of health, it is derived from a comprehensive geriatric assessment that takes into account elements such as physical functioning, mental status, nutritional condition, existing medical con- ditions, medication burden, and the level of social support available to the patient.29 The present study should be interpreted within its strengths and limitations. As previously said to the best of our knowl- edge, this is one of the first studies comparing the strength of different tools after surgical intervention of femoral frac- tures or TKA. Secondly, our study categorized participants as robust, pre-frail, or frail, and examined how each group responded differently to various assessment tools during follow-up. Thirdly, we had a six-month follow-up, which allowed us to observe changes over time and assess the pro- gression or improvement in patients’ health status. This study also has several limitations. First, our comprehensive assessment—combining physical and instrumental methods—was conducted postoperatively, following sur- geries for femoral fractures or TKA. A preoperative eval- uation would have offered a stronger baseline for comparing postoperative outcomes. Secondly, the study was conducted at a single centre, which limits the general- izability of the findings and may introduce bias due to local clinical practices. Lastly, the sample size was smaller than what is typically achievable in multicentred studies. Another limitation is the lack of standardization in postop- erative rehabilitation, which may have influenced recovery trajectories. Conclusions MPI demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy among frailty assessment tools in this study. Its comprehensive na- ture allows early detection of hidden health issues and better prediction of adverse outcomes such as hospitalizations, falls, and mortality over six months. Clinically, MPI offers a valuable tool for stratifying risk in older adults’ post-sur- gery, enabling more targeted interventions. Its use could also reduce preventable complications and associated healthcare costs. In addition, HGS scores were independently associated with higher mortality risk, further supporting the impor- tance of including functional measures in frailty assess- ments. Future studies should explore the routine implementation of both MPI and HGS in clinical settings and evaluate their combined utility in improving long-term outcomes across diverse patient populations. List of abbreviations MPI, Multidimensional Prognostic Index HGS, Handgrip Strength SPPB, Short Physical Performance Battery GDS, Geriatric Depression Scale ROC, Receiver Operating Characteristic TKA, Total Knee Arthroplasty ADL, Activities of Daily Living IADL, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living SPMSQ, Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire CIRS, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale CI, CIRS Comorbidity-Index MNA, Mini Nutritional Assessment ESS, Exton Smith Scale MCID, Minimal Clinically Important Difference SPPB, Short Physical Performance Test AUC, Area Under the Curve VIF, Variance Inflation Factor Conflict of interest The authors declare no potential conflict of interest, and all authors confirm accuracy. Ethics approval The Ethics Committee “Comitato Etico Locale Palermo 1” of the Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Policlinico ap- proved this study (07/2023). The study is conformed with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964, as revised in 2013, con- cerning human and animal rights. Informed consent All patients participating in this study signed a written in- formed consent form for participating in this study. - 317 - Multidimensional assessment in hospitalized elderly patients Eur J Transl Myol 35 (3) 13940, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13940 Patient consent for publication Written informed consent was obtained from a legally au- thorized representative(s) for anonymized patient infor- mation to be published in this article. Availability of data and materials All data generated or analyzed during this study are in- cluded in this published article. Corresponding author Francesco Saverio Ragusa, Geriatric Unit, Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy. ORCID ID: 0000-0001-8998-2044 E-mail: francescosaverio.ragusa@unipa.it Co-authors Nicola Veronese ORCID ID: 0000-0002-9328-289X E-mail: nicola.veronese@unicamillus.org Alessandro D’Aleo E-mail: alessandro.daleo95@gmail.com Ligia J. Dominguez ORCID ID: 0000-0003-1466-8610 E-mail: ligia.dominguez@unikore.it Pietro Cataldo ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3168-6039 E-mail: pietro.cataldo@unipa.it Mario Barbagallo ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1349-6530 E-mail: mario.barbagallo@unipa.it References 1. Anderson R, Lagnado A, Maggiorani D, et al. Length-independent telomere damage drives post- mitotic cardiomyocyte senescence. EMBO J 2019; 38:e100492. 2. Porta M, Filetti C, Chiari A, et al. Examining the asso- ciation between speed and myoelectric activity: Time- based differences and muscle group balance. Plos One 2024;19:e0300117. 3. Salari N, Darvishi N, Ahmadipanah M, et al. Global prevalence of falls in the older adults: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthopaed Surg Res 2022;17:334. 4. Yuan H, Yu H, Zhu Y, et al. Effect of age on the patterns of traumatic femoral fractures: Seven years of experi- ence at a regional tertiary hospital. Orthopaed Surg 2022;14:2132-40. 5. Longo UG, Viganò M, De Girolamo L, et al. Epidemi- ology and management of proximal femoral fractures in Italy between 2001 and 2016 in older adults: analysis of the national discharge registry. Int J Environ Res Pub- lic Health 2022;19:16985. 6. Fountotos R, Munir H, Goldfarb M, et al. Prognostic value of handgrip strength in older adults undergoing cardiac surgery. Canadian J Cardiol 2021;37:1760-6. 7. Hanada M, Yamauchi K, Miyazaki S, et al. Short-Phys- ical Performance Battery (SPPB) score is associated with postoperative pulmonary complications in elderly patients undergoing lung resection surgery: A prospec- tive multicenter cohort study. Chronic Respir Dis 2020;17:1479973120961846. 8. Zanetti M, De Colle P, Niero M, et al. Multidimensional prognostic index predicts short-and long-term mortality and rehospitalizations in older patients with hip fracture. Aging Clin Exper Res 2023;35:1487-95. 9. Argano C, Catalano N, Natoli G, et al. GDS score as screening tool to assess the risk of impact of chronic conditions and depression on quality of life in hospital- ized elderly patients in internal medicine wards. Medi- cine 2021;100:e26346. 10. Pilotto A, Ferrucci L, Franceschi M, et al. Development and validation of a multidimensional prognostic index for one-year mortality from comprehensive geriatric as- sessment in hospitalized older patients. Rejuvenation Res 2008;11:151-61. 11. Pilotto A, Custodero C, Maggi S, et al. A multidimen- sional approach to frailty in older people. Ageing Res Rev 2020;60:101047. 12. Bonnekoh SI, Meyer AM, Pickert L, et al. The multi- dimensional prognostic index in hospitalized older adults: practicability with regard to time needs. Aging Clin Exper Res 2023;35:711-6. 13. Volpato S, Daragjati J, Simonato M, et al. Change in the multidimensional prognostic index score during hospi- talization in older patients. Rejuvenation Res 2016;19: 244-51. 14. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol 1994;49:M85-M94. 15. Rinaldo L, Caligari M, Acquati C, et al. Functional ca- pacity assessment and minimal clinically important dif- ference in post-acute cardiac patients: the role of short physical performance battery. Eur J Preventive Cardiol 2022;29:1008-14. 16. Thorman IB, Loyd BJ, Clendaniel RA, Dibble LE, Schubert MC. The minimal clinically important differ- ence for gait speed in significant unilateral vestibular hypofunction after vestibular rehabilitation. J Otol 2023; 18:15-20. 17. Günther CM, Bürger A, Rickert M, et al. Grip strength in healthy caucasian adults: reference values. J Hand Surg 2008;33:558-65. 18. Sawaya Y, Ishizaka M, Hirose T, et al. Minimal detect- able change in handgrip strength and usual and maxi- mum gait speed scores in community-dwelling Japanese older adults requiring long-term care/support. Geriatr Nurs 2021;42:1184-9. - 318 - Multidimensional assessment in hospitalized elderly patients Eur J Transl Myol 35 (3) 13940, 2025 doi: 10.4081/ejtm.2025.13940 19. Rinaldi P, Mecocci P, Benedetti C, et al. Validation of the five-item geriatric depression scale in elderly sub- jects in three different settings. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003;51:694-8. 20. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Com- paring the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric ap- proach. Biometrics 1988:837-45. 21. McGrath R, Robinson-Lane SG, Peterson MD, et al. Muscle strength and functional limitations: preserving function in older Mexican Americans. J Am Med Di- rectors Assoc 2018;19:391-8. 22. Gonçalves RSdSA, de Figueiredo KMOB, Fernandes SGG, de Andrade LEL, de Araújo Lira MdG, do Nas- cimento RA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the short physical performance battery in detecting frailty and prefrailty in community-dwelling older adults: results from the PRO-EVA study. J Geriatr Phys Ther 2023;46:E127-E36. 23. Álvarez MN, Bonnardeaux PL-D, Thuissard I, Sanz- Rosa D, Muñana EA, Galindo RB, et al. Grip strength and functional recovery after hip fracture: An observa- tional study in elderly population. Eur Geriatr Med 2016;7:556-60. 24. Lawrence VA, Hazuda HP, Cornell JE, et al. Functional independence after major abdominal surgery in the eld- erly. J Am Coll Surg 2004;199:762-72. 25. Chia CL, Mantoo SK, Tan K. ‘Start to finish trans-in- stitutional transdisciplinary care’: a novel approach im- proves colorectal surgical results in frail elderly patients. Colorectal Dis 2016;18:O43-O50. 26. Padua E, Campoli F, Manzi V, et al. Water versus land- based exercises as physical training programs in elderly. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2017;58:802-9. 27. Pilotto A, Veronese N, Daragjati J, et al. Using the mul- tidimensional prognostic index to predict clinical out- comes of hospitalized older persons: a prospective, multicenter, international study. J Gerontol Series A 2019;74:1643-9. 28. Volpato S, Cavalieri M, Sioulis F, et al. Predictive value of the Short Physical Performance Battery following hospitalization in older patients. J J Gerontol Series A 2011;66:89-96. 29. Pilotto A, Sancarlo D, Panza F, et al. The Multidimen- sional Prognostic Index (MPI), based on a comprehen- sive geriatric assessment predicts short-and long-term mortality in hospitalized older patients with dementia. J Alzheimer’s Dis 2009;18:191-9. Disclaimer All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their af- filiated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher. Submitted: 1 May 2025. Accepted: 26 May 2025. Early access: 26 August 2025. - 319 - Online supplementary material: Supplementary Table 1. Delta for SPPB, MPI, Handgrip strength, Walking speed test between baseline and 3 or 6 months. Supplementary Table 2. Hazard Ratios for most important variables: Results from Multivariate analysis.