Ivan Aprahamian1, Natália Oiring de Castro Cezar2, Rafael Izbicki3, Sumika Mori Lin4, Débora Lee Vianna Paulo5, André Fattori5, Marina Maria Biella4, Wilson Jacob Filho4, Mônica Sanches Yassuda6. 1. Division of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil; Institute and Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, USP, São Paulo, Brazil; Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine of Jundiaí, Jundiaí, Brazil. Electronic address: ivan.aprahamian@gmail.com. 2. Institute and Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, USP, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Statistics, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), São Carlos, Brazil. 4. Division of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Campinas State University (Unicamp), Campinas, Brazil. 6. Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, USP, São Paulo, Brazil; School of Arts, Sciences and Humanities, USP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reliable and valid frailty screening instruments are lacking. The aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic properties of the FRAIL-BR with Fried's frailty phenotype (CHS), which has not been done. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study of 124 older adults aged 60 or older from 2 university-based geriatric outpatient units in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. In ROC analyses, we evaluated different cutoff points and AUC areas of the FRAIL-BR compared with the CHS criteria. Also, components of both diagnostic strategies had head-to-head comparisons whenever possible. RESULTS: The sample was composed mostly of overweight (mean BMI = 29.5 kg/m2) women (83%) with mean age of 78.6 (±7.1) years. Prevalence of frailty varied according to the FRAIL-BR (23.3%) and the CHS criteria (14.5%) (P = .04). A cutoff of 3 points in the FRAIL-BR presented a sensitivity of 28% and specificity of 90% (P = .049). A cutoff of 2 points resulted in a sensitivity of 54% and specificity of 73% (P = .01). Comparisons of 4 FRAIL-BR items (ie, weight loss, aerobic capacity, fatigue, and physical resistance) to the respective CHS components showed an independent diagnostic property of all measures, with the exception for weight loss. CONCLUSION: The FRAIL scale can be used as a screening instrument for frailty (time and cost-effective).
BACKGROUND: Reliable and valid frailty screening instruments are lacking. The aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic properties of the FRAIL-BR with Fried's frailty phenotype (CHS), which has not been done. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study of 124 older adults aged 60 or older from 2 university-based geriatric outpatient units in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. In ROC analyses, we evaluated different cutoff points and AUC areas of the FRAIL-BR compared with the CHS criteria. Also, components of both diagnostic strategies had head-to-head comparisons whenever possible. RESULTS: The sample was composed mostly of overweight (mean BMI = 29.5 kg/m2) women (83%) with mean age of 78.6 (±7.1) years. Prevalence of frailty varied according to the FRAIL-BR (23.3%) and the CHS criteria (14.5%) (P = .04). A cutoff of 3 points in the FRAIL-BR presented a sensitivity of 28% and specificity of 90% (P = .049). A cutoff of 2 points resulted in a sensitivity of 54% and specificity of 73% (P = .01). Comparisons of 4 FRAIL-BR items (ie, weight loss, aerobic capacity, fatigue, and physical resistance) to the respective CHS components showed an independent diagnostic property of all measures, with the exception for weight loss. CONCLUSION: The FRAIL scale can be used as a screening instrument for frailty (time and cost-effective).
Authors: I Aprahamian; G V Aricó de Almeida; C F de Vasconcellos Romanin; T Gomes Caldas; N T Antunes Yoshitake; L Bataglini; S Mori Lin; A Alves Pereira; L Nara Alegrini Longhi; R L Mamoni; J E Martinelli Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Hélio José Coelho-Júnior; Marco Carlos Uchida; Anna Picca; Roberto Bernabei; Francesco Landi; Riccardo Calvani; Matteo Cesari; Emanuele Marzetti Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Maria J Susano; Rachel H Grasfield; Matthew Friese; Bernard Rosner; Gregory Crosby; Angela M Bader; James D Kang; Timothy R Smith; Yi Lu; Michael W Groff; John H Chi; Francine Grodstein; Deborah J Culley Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 7.892
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