Myriam Oviedo-Briones1, Ángel Rodríguez Laso1, José Antonio Carnicero1, Matteo Cesari2, Tomasz Grodzicki3, Barbara Gryglewska3, Alan Sinclair4, Francesco Landi5, Bruno Vellas6, Marta Checa-López7, Leocadio Rodriguez-Mañas8. 1. Fundación para la Investigación Biomédica del Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain. 2. Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Internal Medicine and Gerontology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Cracow, Poland. 4. King's College, London, United Kingdom. 5. Hospital Centro Medicina dell'Invecchiamento, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy. 6. Gerontopole, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse, Toulouse, France; INSERM-1027, Université de Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France. 7. Geriatrics Service, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain. 8. Geriatrics Service, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: leocadio.rodriguez@salud.madrid.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine which of 8 commonly employed frailty assessment tools demonstrate the most appropriate characteristics to be employed in different clinical and social settings. DESIGN: Cross-sectional multicenter European-based study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 1440 patients aged ≥75 years evaluated in geriatric inpatient wards, geriatric outpatient clinics, primary care clinics, and nursing homes. METHODS: The frailty instruments used were Frailty Phenotype, SHARE-FI, 3-item Frailty Trait Scale (FTS-3), 5-item Frailty Trait Scale (FTS-5), FRAIL, 35-item Frailty Index (FI-35), Gérontopôle Frailty Screening Tool (GFST), and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The settings were geriatrics wards, outpatient clinics, primary care, and nursing homes. Suitability was evaluated by considering the feasibility (patients with the test fully completed), administration time (time spent for administering the test), and interscale agreement (Cohen kappa index among instruments to detect frailty). RESULTS: The prevalence of frailty varied across settings and adopted tests. The scales with the mean highest feasibility were the FRAIL scale (99.4%), SHARE-FI (98.3%), and GFST (95.0%). The mean shortest administration times were obtained with CFS (24 seconds), GFST (72 seconds), and FRAIL scale (90 seconds). The interscale agreement between most of the tests was fair. CFS followed by FTS-5 agreed at least moderately with a greater number of scales overall and in almost all settings. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Based on feasibility, time to undertake the tool, and agreement with other scales, different scales would be recommended according to the setting considered. Our findings suggest that most of the tools evaluated are actually assessing different frailty constructs.
OBJECTIVE: To determine which of 8 commonly employed frailty assessment tools demonstrate the most appropriate characteristics to be employed in different clinical and social settings. DESIGN: Cross-sectional multicenter European-based study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 1440 patients aged ≥75 years evaluated in geriatric inpatient wards, geriatric outpatient clinics, primary care clinics, and nursing homes. METHODS: The frailty instruments used were Frailty Phenotype, SHARE-FI, 3-item Frailty Trait Scale (FTS-3), 5-item Frailty Trait Scale (FTS-5), FRAIL, 35-item Frailty Index (FI-35), Gérontopôle Frailty Screening Tool (GFST), and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The settings were geriatrics wards, outpatient clinics, primary care, and nursing homes. Suitability was evaluated by considering the feasibility (patients with the test fully completed), administration time (time spent for administering the test), and interscale agreement (Cohen kappa index among instruments to detect frailty). RESULTS: The prevalence of frailty varied across settings and adopted tests. The scales with the mean highest feasibility were the FRAIL scale (99.4%), SHARE-FI (98.3%), and GFST (95.0%). The mean shortest administration times were obtained with CFS (24 seconds), GFST (72 seconds), and FRAIL scale (90 seconds). The interscale agreement between most of the tests was fair. CFS followed by FTS-5 agreed at least moderately with a greater number of scales overall and in almost all settings. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Based on feasibility, time to undertake the tool, and agreement with other scales, different scales would be recommended according to the setting considered. Our findings suggest that most of the tools evaluated are actually assessing different frailty constructs.
Authors: María José Pérez-Sáez; Vanesa Dávalos-Yerovi; Dolores Redondo-Pachón; Carlos E Arias-Cabrales; Anna Faura; Anna Bach; Anna Buxeda; Carla Burballa; Ernestina Junyent; Xavier Nogués; Marta Crespo; Ester Marco; Leocadio Rodríguez-Mañas; Julio Pascual Journal: J Nephrol Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 4.393
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: 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
Authors: Kevin F Boreskie; Jacqueline L Hay; Patrick E Boreskie; Rakesh C Arora; Todd A Duhamel Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: María José Pérez-Sáez; Dolores Redondo-Pachón; Carlos E Arias-Cabrales; Anna Faura; Anna Bach; Anna Buxeda; Carla Burballa; Ernestina Junyent; Marta Crespo; Ester Marco; Leocadio Rodríguez-Mañas; Julio Pascual Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Myriam Oviedo-Briones; Ángel Rodríguez-Laso; José Antonio Carnicero; Barbara Gryglewska; Alan J Sinclair; Francesco Landi; Bruno Vellas; Fernando Rodríguez Artalejo; Marta Checa-López; Leocadio Rodriguez-Mañas Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2022-04-15 Impact factor: 12.063