Literature DB >> 27188938

Physical Frailty Assessment in Older Women: Can Simplification Be Achieved Without Loss of Syndrome Measurement Validity?

Qian-Li Xue, Jing Tian, Linda P Fried, Rita R Kalyani, Ravi Varadhan, Jeremy D Walston, Karen Bandeen-Roche.   

Abstract

Different phenotypes have increasingly been used as tools for clinical characterization of frailty among older adults. Although there have been studies about the comparability and effectiveness of various simplifications and approximations of existing frailty phenotypes for risk prediction, there have been no studies in which investigators evaluated the stability of the clinical characterization achieved. In the present study, we used baseline (1992-1996) data from 786 community-dwelling women who were 70-79 years of age in the Women's Health and Aging Study I and II to compare physical frailty phenotypes (PFPs). Using the 5 criteria set forth by Fried, we created 15 PFPs that were positive for various combinations of 3 or 4 of those criteria and compared them with the PFP that included all 5 criteria in order to assess construct validity with regard to frailty syndrome characterization and predictive validity for adverse outcomes of aging. All PFPs exhibited high specificity and negative predictive values for identifying frailty syndrome. Three-item PFPs were insensitive but were the best performers for positive predictive value, with the highest positive predictive value of 0.86 seen in the PFP characterized by the combination of weakness, exhaustion, and weight loss. In comparison, the 5-criterion PFP achieved a sensitivity of 0.82 but a positive predictive value of only 0.53. With regard to predictive validity, it was not merely the number of criteria used to characterize the PFPs but rather the specific criteria combinations that predicted the risk of adverse outcomes. Our findings show that there clinically important contexts in which simplified PFPs cannot be used interchangeably.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aging; construct validity; diagnosis; latent class; measurement

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27188938      PMCID: PMC4887575          DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwv272

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0002-9262            Impact factor:   4.897


  36 in total

1.  Frailty: an emerging research and clinical paradigm--issues and controversies.

Authors:  Howard Bergman; Luigi Ferrucci; Jack Guralnik; David B Hogan; Silvia Hummel; Sathya Karunananthan; Christina Wolfson
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 6.053

2.  Prevalence of frailty in middle-aged and older community-dwelling Europeans living in 10 countries.

Authors:  Brigitte Santos-Eggimann; Patrick Cuénoud; Jacques Spagnoli; Julien Junod
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 6.053

Review 3.  Modifications to the frailty phenotype criteria: Systematic review of the current literature and investigation of 262 frailty phenotypes in the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe.

Authors:  Olga Theou; Lynne Cann; Joanna Blodgett; Lindsay M K Wallace; Thomas D Brothers; Kenneth Rockwood
Journal:  Ageing Res Rev       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 10.895

4.  A comparison of four frailty models.

Authors:  Theodore K Malmstrom; Douglas K Miller; John E Morley
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 5.562

5.  Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype.

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

6.  Frailty consensus: a call to action.

Authors:  John E Morley; Bruno Vellas; G Abellan van Kan; Stefan D Anker; Juergen M Bauer; Roberto Bernabei; Matteo Cesari; W C Chumlea; Wolfram Doehner; Jonathan Evans; Linda P Fried; Jack M Guralnik; Paul R Katz; Theodore K Malmstrom; Roger J McCarter; Luis M Gutierrez Robledo; Ken Rockwood; Stephan von Haehling; Maurits F Vandewoude; Jeremy Walston
Journal:  J Am Med Dir Assoc       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.669

7.  Comparison of frailty indicators based on clinical phenotype and the multiple deficit approach in predicting mortality and physical limitation.

Authors:  Jean Woo; Jason Leung; John E Morley
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 5.562

8.  The estimation of relative fitness and frailty in community-dwelling older adults using self-report data.

Authors:  Arnold B Mitnitski; Xiaowei Song; Kenneth Rockwood
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 6.053

9.  Validation and comparison of two frailty indexes: The MOBILIZE Boston Study.

Authors:  Dan K Kiely; L Adrienne Cupples; Lewis A Lipsitz
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 5.562

10.  Accumulation of deficits as a proxy measure of aging.

Authors:  A B Mitnitski; A J Mogilner; K Rockwood
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2001-08-08
View more
  7 in total

1.  Principles and Issues for Physical Frailty Measurement and Its Clinical Application.

Authors:  Karen Bandeen-Roche; Alden L Gross; Ravi Varadhan; Brian Buta; Michelle C Carlson; Megan Huisingh-Scheetz; Mara Mcadams-Demarco; Damani A Piggott; Todd T Brown; Rani K Hasan; Rita R Kalyani; Christopher L Seplaki; Jeremy D Walston; Qian-Li Xue
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 6.053

2.  Development, Construct Validity, and Predictive Validity of a Continuous Frailty Scale: Results From 2 Large US Cohorts.

Authors:  Chenkai Wu; G John Geldhof; Qian-Li Xue; Dae H Kim; Anne B Newman; Michelle C Odden
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Getting Underneath Observed Frailty Transitions: Meaningful Change, Prevention, and Intervention.

Authors:  Karen Bandeen-Roche; Sara E Espinoza
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 5.562

4.  Plasma Klotho and Frailty in Older Adults: Findings From the InCHIANTI Study.

Authors:  Michelle Shardell; Richard D Semba; Rita R Kalyani; Stefania Bandinelli; Aric A Prather; Chee W Chia; Luigi Ferrucci
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 6.053

5.  Frailty and Long-Term Post-Kidney Transplant Outcomes.

Authors:  Mara A McAdams-DeMarco; Nadia M Chu; Dorry L Segev
Journal:  Curr Transplant Rep       Date:  2019-02-09

6.  Impact of Low Cardiovascular Risk Profiles on Geriatric Outcomes: Evidence From 421,000 Participants in Two Cohorts.

Authors:  Janice L Atkins; João Delgado; Luke C Pilling; Kirsty Bowman; Jane A H Masoli; George A Kuchel; Luigi Ferrucci; David Melzer
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 6.053

7.  Developing a sensor-based mobile application for in-home frailty assessment: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Marcela D Blinka; Brian Buta; Kevin D Bader; Casey Hanley; Nancy L Schoenborn; Matthew McNabney; Qian-Li Xue
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 3.921

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.