Kolja Stille1, Nancy Temmel1, Jessica Hepp1, Stefan Herget-Rosenthal2. 1. Department of Medicine, Rotes Kreuz Krankenhaus, St.-Pauli-Deich 24, 28199, Bremen, Germany. 2. Department of Medicine, Rotes Kreuz Krankenhaus, St.-Pauli-Deich 24, 28199, Bremen, Germany. herget-rosenthal.s@roteskreuzkrankenhaus.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is a considerable need to measure frailty retrospectively in clinical practice and research. We assessed agreement, accuracy, precision, and reliability of retrospectively compared with prospectively, and separately attained, retrospective Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) scoring, respectively. METHODS: We studied 110 hospitalized patients aged ≥ 80 years, consisting of 70.9% females. Agreement was assessed by bias, accuracy by root mean square error (RMSE) and the percentages of one CFS scores within 20% and 30% of each other (P20 and P30), precision by interquartile ranges of the bias, and reliability by weighted Cohen's kappa (κ). RESULTS: Comparison of retrospective and prospective CFS scores demonstrated a modest bias of 0.26. Classification as robust, prefrail, or frail was generally correct in retrospectively compared to prospectively CFS scores. RMSE was low (0.28), while P20 and P30 values were high (90.0% and 96.6%, respectively). Precision of retrospective to predict prospective CFS scores was high with narrow interquartile ranges of 0 and 1. Reliability of retrospective with prospective CFS scores was high (κ = 0.89). Comparing two separately attained retrospective CFS scores demonstrated low bias (0.05) and RMSE (0.24), and a high P30 value (90.0%). Precision and interrater reliability of the comparison of retrospective CFS scores were high with narrow interquartile ranges and κ = 0.85. CONCLUSION: The retrospectively attained CFS score is a valid diagnostic instrument to measure frailty in older hospitalized patients with high agreement, accuracy, precision, and reliability compared to both prospective and separately attained CFS scores.
PURPOSE: There is a considerable need to measure frailty retrospectively in clinical practice and research. We assessed agreement, accuracy, precision, and reliability of retrospectively compared with prospectively, and separately attained, retrospective Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) scoring, respectively. METHODS: We studied 110 hospitalized patients aged ≥ 80 years, consisting of 70.9% females. Agreement was assessed by bias, accuracy by root mean square error (RMSE) and the percentages of one CFS scores within 20% and 30% of each other (P20 and P30), precision by interquartile ranges of the bias, and reliability by weighted Cohen's kappa (κ). RESULTS: Comparison of retrospective and prospective CFS scores demonstrated a modest bias of 0.26. Classification as robust, prefrail, or frail was generally correct in retrospectively compared to prospectively CFS scores. RMSE was low (0.28), while P20 and P30 values were high (90.0% and 96.6%, respectively). Precision of retrospective to predict prospective CFS scores was high with narrow interquartile ranges of 0 and 1. Reliability of retrospective with prospective CFS scores was high (κ = 0.89). Comparing two separately attained retrospective CFS scores demonstrated low bias (0.05) and RMSE (0.24), and a high P30 value (90.0%). Precision and interrater reliability of the comparison of retrospective CFS scores were high with narrow interquartile ranges and κ = 0.85. CONCLUSION: The retrospectively attained CFS score is a valid diagnostic instrument to measure frailty in older hospitalized patients with high agreement, accuracy, precision, and reliability compared to both prospective and separately attained CFS scores.
Authors: Laura C Blomaard; Carolien M J van der Linden; Jessica M van der Bol; Steffy W M Jansen; Harmke A Polinder-Bos; Hanna C Willems; Jan Festen; Dennis G Barten; Anke J Borgers; Jeannet C Bos; Frederiek van den Bos; Esther J M de Brouwer; Floor J A van Deudekom; Suzanne C van Dijk; Mariëlle H Emmelot-Vonk; Raya E S Geels; Esther M M van de Glind; Bas de Groot; Liesbeth Hempenius; Ad M Kamper; Linda M Kampschreur; Marre M M de Koning; Geert Labots; Roy Looman; Jacinta A Lucke; Huub A A M Maas; Francesco U S Mattace-Raso; Rachida El Moussaoui; Barbara C van Munster; Kees van Nieuwkoop; Leanne Ble Oosterwijk; Marlies Em Regtuijt; Sarah H M Robben; Rikje Ruiter; Aisha M Salarbaks; Henrike J Schouten; Orla M Smit; Rosalinde A L Smits; Petra E Spies; Ralph Vreeswijk; Oscar J de Vries; Marjolein A Wijngaarden; Caroline E Wyers; Simon P Mooijaart Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2021-01-30 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Marleen G A M van der Velde; Merel J van der Aa; Merel H C van Daal; Marjolein N T Kremers; Carolina J P W Keijsers; Sander M J van Kuijk; Harm R Haak Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 4.070
Authors: Ilena Müller; Marco Mancinetti; Anja Renner; Pierre-Olivier Bridevaux; Martin H Brutsche; Christian Clarenbach; Christian Garzoni; Alexandra Lenoir; Bruno Naccini; Sebastian Ott; Lise Piquilloud; Maura Prella; Yok-Ai Que; Paola Marina Soccal; Christophe von Garnier; Thomas K Geiser; Manuela Funke-Chambour; Sabina Guler Journal: BMJ Open Respir Res Date: 2022-04
Authors: Daniel Andres; Caroline Imhoof; Markus Bürge; Gabi Jakob; Andreas Limacher; Anna K Stuck Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Laura C Blomaard; Carolien M J van der Linden; Jessica M van der Bol; Steffy W M Jansen; Harmke A Polinder-Bos; Hanna C Willems; Jan Festen; Dennis G Barten; Anke J Borgers; Jeannet C Bos; Frederiek van den Bos; Esther J M de Brouwer; Floor J A van Deudekom; Suzanne C van Dijk; Mariëlle H Emmelot-Vonk; Raya E S Geels; Esther M M van de Glind; Bas de Groot; Liesbeth Hempenius; Ad M Kamper; Linda M Kampschreur; Marre M M de Koning; Geert Labots; Roy Looman; Jacinta A Lucke; Huub A A M Maas; Francesco U S Mattace-Raso; Rachida El Moussaoui; Barbara C van Munster; Cees van Nieuwkoop; Leanne B L E Oosterwijk; Marlies E M Regtuijt; Sarah H M Robben; Rikje Ruiter; Aisha M Salarbaks; Henrike J Schouten; Orla M Smit; Rosalinde A L Smits; Petra E Spies; Ralph Vreeswijk; Oscar J de Vries; Marjolein A Wijngaarden; Caroline E Wyers; Simon P Mooijaart Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Tadhg Prendiville; Aoife Leahy; Laura Quinlan; Anastasia Saleh; Elaine Shanahan; Ahmed Gabr; Catherine Peters; Ivan Casserly; Margaret O'Connor; Rose Galvin Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Rosalinde A L Smits; Stella Trompet; Carolien M J van der Linden; Jessica M van der Bol; Steffy W M Jansen; Harmke A Polinder-Bos; Hanna C Willems; Dennis G Barten; Laura C Blomaard; Mark G J de Boer; Floor J A van Deudekom; Jacobien L J Ellerbroek; Jan Festen; Esther M M van de Glind; Linda M Kampschreur; Ouafae Karimi; Bart Kroon; Marc G J A van Lanen; Jacinta A Lucke; Huub A A M Maas; Francesco U S Mattace-Raso; Barbara C van Munster; Lisette Reijerse; Sarah H M Robben; Rikje Ruiter; Henrike J Schouten; Petra E Spies; Anna Wassenburg; Marjolein A Wijngaarden; Simon P Mooijaart Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Bart Kroon; Sara J E Beishuizen; Inge H T van Rensen; Dennis G Barten; Jannet J Mehagnoul-Schipper; Jessica M van der Bol; Jacobien L J Ellerbroek; Jan Festen; Esther M M van de Glind; Liesbeth Hempenius; Mathieu van der Jagt; Steffy W M Jansen; Carolien J M van der Linden; Simon P Mooijaart; Barbara C van Munster; Leanne L E Oosterwijk; Lisa Smit; Louise C Urlings-Strop; Hanna C Willems; Francesco U S Mattace-Raso; Harmke A Polinder-Bos Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Robert S Kay; Martin Hughes; Thomas R Williamson; Andrew J Hall; Andrew D Duckworth; Nick D Clement Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2022-08-20 Impact factor: 3.269