E Ntanasi1,2,3, M Yannakoulia1, N Mourtzi2, G S Vlachos2, M H Kosmidis4, C A Anastasiou1,2, E Dardiotis5, G Hadjigeorgiou5, M Megalou6, P Sakka3, N Scarmeas2,7. 1. Harokopio University, Athens, Greece. 2. Eginition Hospital, Athens, Greece. 3. Athens Association of Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders, Athens, Greece. 4. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. 5. University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece. 6. Biomedicine Diagnostic Laboratory, Athens, Greece. 7. Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
Objective: To estimate the prevalence of frailty using five different instruments in a cohort of older adults and explore the association between frailty and various risk factors. Method: 1,867 participants aged 65 years and above were included in the current retrospective cross-sectional study. Frailty was operationalized according to the Fried definition, the FRAIL Scale, the Frailty Index (FI), the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), and the Groningen Frailty Index (GFI). We explored the role of various frailty risk factors using logistic regression analyses. Results: The prevalence of frailty varied depending on the definition used (Fried definition = 4.1%, FRAIL Scale = 1.5%, FI = 19.7%, TFI = 24.5%, and GFI = 30.2%). The only risk factors consistently associated with frailty irrespectively of definition were education and age. Conclusion: The frailty prevalence reported in our study is similar or lower to that reported in other population studies. Qualitative differences between frailty definitions were observed.
Objective: To estimate the prevalence of frailty using five different instruments in a cohort of older adults and explore the association between frailty and various risk factors. Method: 1,867 participants aged 65 years and above were included in the current retrospective cross-sectional study. Frailty was operationalized according to the Fried definition, the FRAIL Scale, the Frailty Index (FI), the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), and the Groningen Frailty Index (GFI). We explored the role of various frailty risk factors using logistic regression analyses. Results: The prevalence of frailty varied depending on the definition used (Fried definition = 4.1%, FRAIL Scale = 1.5%, FI = 19.7%, TFI = 24.5%, and GFI = 30.2%). The only risk factors consistently associated with frailty irrespectively of definition were education and age. Conclusion: The frailty prevalence reported in our study is similar or lower to that reported in other population studies. Qualitative differences between frailty definitions were observed.
Authors: Naila Ijaz; Brian Buta; Qian-Li Xue; Denise T Mohess; Archana Bushan; Henry Tran; Wayne Batchelor; Christopher R deFilippi; Jeremy D Walston; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Daniel E Forman; Jon R Resar; Christopher M O'Connor; Gary Gerstenblith; Abdulla A Damluji Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael C J Van der Elst; Birgitte Schoenmakers; Linda P M Op Het Veld; Ellen E De Roeck; Anne Van der Vorst; Gertrudis I J M Kempen; Nico De Witte; Jan De Lepeleire; Jos M G A Schols Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 3.921