Comparison of geriatric assessment tools for frailty among community elderly
- PMID: 32964152
- PMCID: PMC7490815
- DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04797
Comparison of geriatric assessment tools for frailty among community elderly
Abstract
Background: Frailty is an important condition in elderly individuals because it increases disability, morbidity, and mortality. The definition frailty from the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) criteria is used worldwide and defined as fulfilling 3 out of the 5 phenotypic criteria that indicate compromised energetics: weakness, slowness, low level of physical activity, self-reported exhaustion, and unintentional weight loss.
Objective: This research aims to study the validity of 5 screening methods, e.g., Clinical Frailty Scale, simple FRAIL questionnaire, PRISMA-7 questionnaire, Time Up and Go Test (TUG), and Gérontopôle frailty screening tool (GFST), and compare those results with the definition of frailty by using the CHS criteria for screening frailty.
Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study. The sample was 214 elderly individuals, aged ≥60 years, and living in the community. We used 5 screening tests and the Fried phenotype (CHS criteria) as a reference standard. Analysis of the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR+, LR-, and accuracy of each screening was compared with the Fried phenotype (CHS criteria).
Results: The prevalence of frailty of elderly individuals in the community was 11.7% when using the Fried phenotype (CHS criteria). The Clinical Frailty Scale has sensitivity 56%, specificity 98.41%, PPV 82.35%, NPV 94.42%, LR+ 35.28, LR- 0.45, and accuracy 93.46%. The simple FRAIL questionnaire has sensitivity 88%, specificity 85.71%, PPV 44.90%, NPV 98.18%, LR+ 6.61, LR- 0.14, and accuracy 85.98%. The PRISMA-7 questionnaire has sensitivity 76%, specificity 86.24%, PPV 42.22%, NPV 96.45%, LR+ 5.52, LR- 0.28, and accuracy 85.05%. TUG has sensitivity 72%, specificity 82.54%, PPV 35.29%, NPV 95.71%, LR+ 4.12, LR- 0.34, and accuracy 81.31%. The GFST has sensitivity 88%, specificity 83.56%, PPV 41.51%, NPV 98.14%, LR+ 5.37, LR- 0.14, and accuracy 84.11%.
Conclusions: The simple FRAIL questionnaire and GFST have the highest sensitivity compared with the CHS criteria. All screening tests in this study have an accuracy of more than 80% compared with the CHS criteria.
Keywords: Diagnostics; Elderly; Frailty; Geriatric assessment; Health promotion; Internal medicine; Medicine; Public health; Screening tools.
© 2020 The Author(s).
Similar articles
-
Diagnostic Test of a Scoring System for Frailty Syndrome in the Elderly According to Cardiovascular Health Study, Study of Osteoporotic Fracture and Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment Based Frailty Index Compared with Frailty Index 40 Items.Acta Med Indones. 2015 Jul;47(3):183-7. Acta Med Indones. 2015. PMID: 26586383
-
Screening tools to expedite assessment of frailty in people receiving haemodialysis: a diagnostic accuracy study.BMC Geriatr. 2021 Jul 2;21(1):411. doi: 10.1186/s12877-021-02356-x. BMC Geriatr. 2021. PMID: 34215211 Free PMC article.
-
General Practitioners' Clinical Impression in the Screening for Frailty: Data From the FAP Study Pilot.J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Feb 1;18(2):193.e1-193.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2016.11.008. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017. PMID: 28126138
-
German translation, cross-cultural adaptation and diagnostic test accuracy of three frailty screening tools : PRISMA-7, FRAIL scale and Groningen Frailty Indicator.Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2018 Apr;51(3):282-292. doi: 10.1007/s00391-017-1295-2. Epub 2017 Aug 9. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2018. PMID: 28795247 English.
-
Frailty in community-dwelling older adults: reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Gérontopôle frailty screening tool.Turk J Med Sci. 2022 Dec;52(6):2004-2010. doi: 10.55730/1300-0144.5549. Epub 2022 Dec 21. Turk J Med Sci. 2022. PMID: 36945979 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Assessing causality between inflammatory bowel diseases with frailty index and sarcopenia: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study.Eur J Med Res. 2024 Jan 5;29(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s40001-023-01614-5. Eur J Med Res. 2024. PMID: 38183088 Free PMC article.
-
Prevalence of Frailty and Its Standardised Assessment Tools among Malaysian Older Person: A Systematic Review.Malays J Med Sci. 2022 Dec;29(6):34-45. doi: 10.21315/mjms2022.29.6.4. Epub 2022 Dec 22. Malays J Med Sci. 2022. PMID: 36818895 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Predictive Ability of the Three-Time Stand and Walk Test to Determine Frailty and its Associations with Fear of Falling and Cognitive Function in Community-Dwelling Older Adults.Ann Geriatr Med Res. 2022 Dec;26(4):316-322. doi: 10.4235/agmr.22.0072. Epub 2022 Dec 19. Ann Geriatr Med Res. 2022. PMID: 36529518 Free PMC article.
-
The impact of frailty evaluation on the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with hip fracture following surgery: a meta-analysis.Aging Clin Exp Res. 2023 Nov;35(11):2413-2423. doi: 10.1007/s40520-023-02529-1. Epub 2023 Sep 14. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2023. PMID: 37707745 Review.
-
Real-World Implementation of PRISMA-7 and Clinical Frailty Scale for Frailty Identification and Integrated Care Activation: A Cross-Sectional Study in Northern Italian Primary Practice.J Clin Med. 2025 May 14;14(10):3431. doi: 10.3390/jcm14103431. J Clin Med. 2025. PMID: 40429424 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Wanaratna K., Muangpaisan W., Kuptniratsaikul V., Chalermsri C., Nuttamonwarakul A. Prevalence and factors associated with frailty and cognitive frailty among community-dwelling elderly with knee osteoarthritis. J. Community Health. 2019;44(3):587–595. - PubMed
-
- Aprahamian I., Cezar N., Izbicki R., Lin S., Paulo D., Fattori A. Screening for frailty with the frail scale: a comparison with the phenotype criteria. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2017;18 - PubMed
-
- Greene B.R., Doheny E.P., O'Halloran A., Anne Kenny R. Frailty status can be accurately assessed using inertial sensors and the TUG test. Age Ageing. 2013;43(3):406–411. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources