Roman Romero-Ortuno1. 1. Department of Medical Gerontology, Trinity College Dublin, Old Stone Building, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St James's Hospital, James's Street, Dublin 8, Ireland, .
Abstract
PURPOSE: the phenotype defined by Fried et al. is one of the main operationalizations of frailty. Santos-Eggimann et al. pioneered the adaptation of the phenotype criteria to the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE, http://www.share-project.org/). Using the adapted criteria, Romero-Ortuno et al. created and validated the SHARE Frailty Instrument for Primary Care (SHARE-FI). In SHARE-FI, the cut-offs for the phenotypic categories (i.e. non-frail, pre-frail and frail) are automatically derived from latent variable modelling, while Fried et al. (and also Santos-Eggimann et al.) use a rule based on the number of criteria present (Ncriteria): ≥ 3: frail; 1 or 2: pre-frail; 0: non-frail. The aim of the present study was to compare the mortality prediction of these two different approaches (latent variable modelling in SHARE-FI vs. Ncriteria in Santos-Eggimann et al.). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: the subjects were 15,420 women and 12,742 men from the first wave of SHARE. A correspondence analysis was used to assess the degree of agreement between phenotypic classifications. The ability of the continuous measures (Ncriteria and SHARE-FI score) to predict mortality (mean follow-up of 2.4 years) was compared using receiver operating characteristic plots and areas under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: in both women and men, there was a high degree of correspondence between phenotypic categories. The two continuous measures performed similarly as mortality predictors (women: SHARE-FI-AUC = 0.77; Ncriteria-AUC = 0.75. Men: SHARE-FI-AUC = 0.76; Ncriteria-AUC = 0.72). CONCLUSION: the two approaches to the SHARE operationalized frailty phenotype performed equally well to predict mortality.
PURPOSE: the phenotype defined by Fried et al. is one of the main operationalizations of frailty. Santos-Eggimann et al. pioneered the adaptation of the phenotype criteria to the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE, http://www.share-project.org/). Using the adapted criteria, Romero-Ortuno et al. created and validated the SHARE Frailty Instrument for Primary Care (SHARE-FI). In SHARE-FI, the cut-offs for the phenotypic categories (i.e. non-frail, pre-frail and frail) are automatically derived from latent variable modelling, while Fried et al. (and also Santos-Eggimann et al.) use a rule based on the number of criteria present (Ncriteria): ≥ 3: frail; 1 or 2: pre-frail; 0: non-frail. The aim of the present study was to compare the mortality prediction of these two different approaches (latent variable modelling in SHARE-FI vs. Ncriteria in Santos-Eggimann et al.). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: the subjects were 15,420 women and 12,742 men from the first wave of SHARE. A correspondence analysis was used to assess the degree of agreement between phenotypic classifications. The ability of the continuous measures (Ncriteria and SHARE-FI score) to predict mortality (mean follow-up of 2.4 years) was compared using receiver operating characteristic plots and areas under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: in both women and men, there was a high degree of correspondence between phenotypic categories. The two continuous measures performed similarly as mortality predictors (women: SHARE-FI-AUC = 0.77; Ncriteria-AUC = 0.75. Men: SHARE-FI-AUC = 0.76; Ncriteria-AUC = 0.72). CONCLUSION: the two approaches to the SHARE operationalized frailty phenotype performed equally well to predict mortality.
Authors: Leocadio Rodríguez-Mañas; Catherine Féart; Giovanni Mann; Jose Viña; Somnath Chatterji; Wojtek Chodzko-Zajko; Magali Gonzalez-Colaço Harmand; Howard Bergman; Laure Carcaillon; Caroline Nicholson; Angelo Scuteri; Alan Sinclair; Martha Pelaez; Tischa Van der Cammen; François Beland; Jerome Bickenbach; Paul Delamarche; Luigi Ferrucci; Linda P Fried; Luis Miguel Gutiérrez-Robledo; Kenneth Rockwood; Fernando Rodríguez Artalejo; Gaetano Serviddio; Enrique Vega Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2012-04-16 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Gabor Abellan van Kan; Yves Rolland; Mathieu Houles; Sophie Gillette-Guyonnet; Maria Soto; Bruno Vellas Journal: Clin Geriatr Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.076
Authors: Sandrah P Eckel; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Paulo H M Chaves; Linda P Fried; Thomas A Louis Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Jennifer L Sutton; Rebecca L Gould; Stephanie Daley; Mark C Coulson; Emma V Ward; Aine M Butler; Stephen P Nunn; Robert J Howard Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Jossiana Wilke Faller; David do Nascimento Pereira; Suzana de Souza; Fernando Kenji Nampo; Fabiana de Souza Orlandi; Silvia Matumoto Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marta Morales-Puerto; María Ruiz-Díaz; Marta Aranda-Gallardo; José Miguel Morales-Asencio; Purificación Alcalá-Gutiérrez; José Antonio Rodríguez-Montalvo; Álvaro León-Campos; Silvia García-Mayor; José Carlos Canca-Sánchez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Bernadette Wilhelmina Antonia Van Der Linden; Stefan Sieber; Boris Cheval; Dan Orsholits; Idris Guessous; Rainer Gabriel; Martina Von Arx; Michelle Kelly-Irving; Marja Aartsen; David Blane; Matthieu P Boisgontier; Delphine Courvoisier; Michel Oris; Matthias Kliegel; Stéphane Cullati Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 4.077