Gotaro Kojima1. 1. Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: gotarokojima@yahoo.co.jp.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of the literature on prospective cohort studies examining mortality risk according to frailty defined by FRAIL scale, and to perform a meta-analysis to synthesize the pooled risk estimates. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Embase, Scopus, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were systematically searched in March 2018. References of included studies were reviewed and a forward citation tracking was performed on relevant review papers for additional studies. Additional data necessary for a meta-analysis were requested from corresponding authors. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults. MEASUREMENTS: Mortality risk due to frailty as defined by the FRAIL scale. RESULTS: After removing duplicates, there are 81 citations for title, abstract, and full-text screening. Eight studies were included in this review. Four studies calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, which ranged from 0.54 to 0.70. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted on 3 studies that provided adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of mortality risk according to 3 frailty groups (robust, prefrail, and frail) defined by FRAIL scale. Both frailty and prefrailty were significantly associated with higher mortality risk than robustness [pooled HR = 3.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.66-7.49, P = .001; pooled HR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.14-2.70, P = .01, respectively]. No evidence of publication bias was observed. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that FRAIL scale is a tool that can effectively identify frailty/prefrailty status, as well as quantify frailty status in a graded manner in relation to mortality risk. Although its feasibility is of note, not many studies are yet using this relatively new tool. More studies are warranted regarding mortality and other health outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of the literature on prospective cohort studies examining mortality risk according to frailty defined by FRAIL scale, and to perform a meta-analysis to synthesize the pooled risk estimates. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Embase, Scopus, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were systematically searched in March 2018. References of included studies were reviewed and a forward citation tracking was performed on relevant review papers for additional studies. Additional data necessary for a meta-analysis were requested from corresponding authors. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling middle-aged and older adults. MEASUREMENTS: Mortality risk due to frailty as defined by the FRAIL scale. RESULTS: After removing duplicates, there are 81 citations for title, abstract, and full-text screening. Eight studies were included in this review. Four studies calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, which ranged from 0.54 to 0.70. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted on 3 studies that provided adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of mortality risk according to 3 frailty groups (robust, prefrail, and frail) defined by FRAIL scale. Both frailty and prefrailty were significantly associated with higher mortality risk than robustness [pooled HR = 3.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.66-7.49, P = .001; pooled HR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.14-2.70, P = .01, respectively]. No evidence of publication bias was observed. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that FRAIL scale is a tool that can effectively identify frailty/prefrailty status, as well as quantify frailty status in a graded manner in relation to mortality risk. Although its feasibility is of note, not many studies are yet using this relatively new tool. More studies are warranted regarding mortality and other health outcomes.
Authors: Rafael Bielza; Cristina Balaguer; Francisco Zambrana; Estefanía Arias; Israel J Thuissard; Ana Lung; Carlos Oñoro; Patricia Pérez; Cristina Andreu-Vázquez; Marta Neira; Noemi Anguita; Carmen Sáez; Eva María Fernández de la Puente Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2022-04-23 Impact factor: 3.269