E H Gordon1, N M Peel2, M Samanta3, O Theou4, S E Howlett4, R E Hubbard2. 1. School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. Electronic address: e.gordon@uq.edu.au. 2. Centre for Research in Geriatric Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 3. QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. 4. Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is a well-described clinical phenomenon that females live longer than males, yet tend to experience greater levels of co-morbidity and disability. Females can therefore be considered both more frail (because they have poorer health status) and less frail (because they have a lower risk of mortality). This systematic review aimed to determine whether this ageing paradox is demonstrated when the Frailty Index (FI) is used to measure frailty. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL databases were searched for observational studies that measured FI and mortality in community-dwellers over 65years of age. In five-year age groups, meta-analysis determined the sex differences in mean FI (MD=mean FIfemale-mean FImale) and mortality rate. RESULTS: Of 6482 articles screened, seven articles were included. Meta-analysis of data from five studies (37,426 participants) found that MD values were positive (p<0.001; MD range=0.02-0.06) in all age groups, indicating that females had higher FI scores than males at all ages. This finding was consistent across individual studies. Heterogeneity was high (I2=72.7%), reflecting methodological differences. Meta-analysis of mortality data (13,127 participants) showed that male mortality rates exceeded female mortality rates up until the 90 to 94-years age group. Individual studies reported higher mortality for males at each level of FI, and higher risk of death for males when controlling for age and FI. CONCLUSIONS: The pattern of sex differences in the FI and mortality of older adults was consistent across populations and confirmed a 'male-female health-survival paradox'.
BACKGROUND: It is a well-described clinical phenomenon that females live longer than males, yet tend to experience greater levels of co-morbidity and disability. Females can therefore be considered both more frail (because they have poorer health status) and less frail (because they have a lower risk of mortality). This systematic review aimed to determine whether this ageing paradox is demonstrated when the Frailty Index (FI) is used to measure frailty. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL databases were searched for observational studies that measured FI and mortality in community-dwellers over 65years of age. In five-year age groups, meta-analysis determined the sex differences in mean FI (MD=mean FIfemale-mean FImale) and mortality rate. RESULTS: Of 6482 articles screened, seven articles were included. Meta-analysis of data from five studies (37,426 participants) found that MD values were positive (p<0.001; MD range=0.02-0.06) in all age groups, indicating that females had higher FI scores than males at all ages. This finding was consistent across individual studies. Heterogeneity was high (I2=72.7%), reflecting methodological differences. Meta-analysis of mortality data (13,127 participants) showed that male mortality rates exceeded female mortality rates up until the 90 to 94-years age group. Individual studies reported higher mortality for males at each level of FI, and higher risk of death for males when controlling for age and FI. CONCLUSIONS: The pattern of sex differences in the FI and mortality of older adults was consistent across populations and confirmed a 'male-female health-survival paradox'.
Authors: Linda Juel Ahrenfeldt; Sören Möller; Mikael Thinggaard; Kaare Christensen; Rune Lindahl-Jacobsen Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Brooke M Huibregtse; Breanne L Newell-Stamper; Benjamin W Domingue; Jason D Boardman Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Chris Wilkinson; Andrew Clegg; Oliver Todd; Kenneth Rockwood; Mohammad E Yadegarfar; Chris P Gale; Marlous Hall Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2020-12-16 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Dushani L Palliyaguru; Jacqueline M Moats; Clara Di Germanio; Michel Bernier; Rafael de Cabo Journal: Mech Ageing Dev Date: 2019-03-26 Impact factor: 5.432
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: Megan Huisingh-Scheetz; Kristen Wroblewski; Masha Kocherginsky; Elbert Huang; William Dale; Linda Waite; L Philip Schumm Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Sarah M Barbey; Salvatore T Scali; Paul Kubilis; Adam W Beck; Philip Goodney; Kristina A Giles; Scott A Berceli; Thomas S Huber; Gilbert R Upchurch; Lusine Yaghjyan Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Thomas S Kraft; Jonathan Stieglitz; Benjamin C Trumble; Angela R Garcia; Hillard Kaplan; Michael Gurven Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 6.237