BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to identify and review screening tools for frailty in older adults admitted to inpatient hospital care with respect to their validity, reliability and feasibility. METHODS: Studies were identified through systematically searching PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase and PsycINFO and screening reference lists till June 2014. Papers dealing with screening tools aimed at identifying frail older patients in in-hospital care, and including information about validity, reliability or feasibility, were included in the review. The quality of the included studies was critically appraised via the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS). RESULTS: From the originally identified 2001 studies 32 studies met the inclusion criteria, in which 16 screening tools were presented. The screening tools showed different characteristics with respect to the number of items, the method of administration and the domains included. The most frequently studied tools with respect to predictive validity were the Identification Seniors At Risk (ISAR) and Triage Risk Stratification Tool (TRST). Studies retrieved poorer information about reliability and feasibility. Overall sensitivity was fairly good. The ISAR, ISAR-HP (Identification Seniors At Risk Hospitalized Patients) and Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) generally had the best sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Many screening tools are available for daily practice. These tools to identify frail older patients in inpatient hospital care could be useful. For no tool, however, is clear evidence available yet regarding validity, reliability and feasibility. The overall sensitivity of the included screening tools was fairly good, whereas information on reliability and feasibility was lacking for most tools. In future research more attention should be given to the latter items.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to identify and review screening tools for frailty in older adults admitted to inpatient hospital care with respect to their validity, reliability and feasibility. METHODS: Studies were identified through systematically searching PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase and PsycINFO and screening reference lists till June 2014. Papers dealing with screening tools aimed at identifying frail older patients in in-hospital care, and including information about validity, reliability or feasibility, were included in the review. The quality of the included studies was critically appraised via the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS). RESULTS: From the originally identified 2001 studies 32 studies met the inclusion criteria, in which 16 screening tools were presented. The screening tools showed different characteristics with respect to the number of items, the method of administration and the domains included. The most frequently studied tools with respect to predictive validity were the Identification Seniors At Risk (ISAR) and Triage Risk Stratification Tool (TRST). Studies retrieved poorer information about reliability and feasibility. Overall sensitivity was fairly good. The ISAR, ISAR-HP (Identification Seniors At Risk Hospitalized Patients) and Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) generally had the best sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Many screening tools are available for daily practice. These tools to identify frail older patients in inpatient hospital care could be useful. For no tool, however, is clear evidence available yet regarding validity, reliability and feasibility. The overall sensitivity of the included screening tools was fairly good, whereas information on reliability and feasibility was lacking for most tools. In future research more attention should be given to the latter items.
Authors: F J Huyse; P de Jonge; J P Slaets; T Herzog; A Lobo; J S Lyons; B C Opmeer; B Stein; V Arolt; N Balogh; G Cardoso; P Fink; M Rigatelli Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2001 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.386
Authors: Christophe E Graf; Sandra V Giannelli; François R Herrmann; Francois P Sarasin; Jean-Pierre Michel; Dina Zekry; Thierry Chevalley Journal: Swiss Med Wkly Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 2.193
Authors: Jita G Hoogerduijn; Marieke J Schuurmans; Johanna C Korevaar; Bianca M Buurman; Sophia E de Rooij Journal: J Clin Nurs Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 3.036
Authors: Fredric M Hustey; Lorraine C Mion; Jason T Connor; Charles L Emerman; James Campbell; Robert M Palmer Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Nicola Veronese; Giacomo Siri; Alberto Cella; Julia Daragjati; Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft; Maria Cristina Polidori; Francesco Mattace-Raso; Marc Paccalin; Eva Topinkova; Antonio Greco; Arduino A Mangoni; Stefania Maggi; Luigi Ferrucci; Alberto Pilotto Journal: Maturitas Date: 2019-08-03 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: S Somekawa; T Mine; K Ono; N Hayashi; S Obuchi; H Yoshida; H Kawai; Y Fujiwara; H Hirano; M Kojima; K Ihara; H Kim Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Francisco J Martín-Sánchez; Michael Christ; Òscar Miró; W Frank Peacock; John J McMurray; Héctor Bueno; Alan S Maisel; Louise Cullen; Martin R Cowie; Salvatore Di Somma; Elke Platz; Josep Masip; Uwe Zeymer; Christiaan Vrints; Susanna Price; Christian Mueller Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Alberto Pilotto; Carlo Custodero; Stefania Maggi; Maria Cristina Polidori; Nicola Veronese; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: Ageing Res Rev Date: 2020-03-21 Impact factor: 10.895
Authors: Anna Torné; Emma Puigoriol; Edurne Zabaleta-Del-Olmo; Juan-José Zamora-Sánchez; Sebastià Santaeugènia; Jordi Amblàs-Novellas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 3.390