Predicting risk and outcomes for frail older adults: an umbrella review of frailty screening tools
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: A scoping search identified systematic reviews on diagnostic accuracy and predictive ability of frailty measures in older adults. In most cases, research was confined to specific assessment measures related to a specific clinical model. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the best available evidence from systematic reviews in relation to reliability, validity, diagnostic accuracy and predictive ability of frailty measures in older adults. INCLUSION CRITERIA POPULATION: Older adults aged 60 years or older recruited from community, primary care, long-term residential care and hospitals. INDEX TEST: Available frailty measures in older adults. REFERENCE TEST: Cardiovascular Health Study phenotype model, the Canadian Study of Health and Aging cumulative deficit model, Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment or other reference tests. DIAGNOSIS OF INTEREST: Frailty defined as an age-related state of decreased physiological reserves characterized by an increased risk of poor clinical outcomes. TYPES OF STUDIES: Quantitative systematic reviews. SEARCH STRATEGY: A three-step search strategy was utilized to find systematic reviews, available in English, published between January 2001 and October 2015. METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY: Assessed by two independent reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for systematic reviews and research synthesis. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data using the standardized data extraction tool designed for umbrella reviews. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data were only presented in a narrative form due to the heterogeneity of included reviews. RESULTS: Five reviews with a total of 227,381 participants were included in this umbrella review. Two reviews focused on reliability, validity and diagnostic accuracy; two examined predictive ability for adverse health outcomes; and one investigated validity, diagnostic accuracy and predictive ability. In total, 26 questionnaires and brief assessments and eight frailty indicators were analyzed, most of which were applied to community-dwelling older people. The Frailty Index was examined in almost all these dimensions, with the exception of reliability, and its diagnostic and predictive characteristics were shown to be satisfactory. Gait speed showed high sensitivity, but only moderate specificity, and excellent predictive ability for future disability in activities of daily living. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator was shown to be a reliable and valid measure for frailty screening, but its diagnostic accuracy was not evaluated. Screening Letter, Timed-up-and-go test and PRISMA 7 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) demonstrated high sensitivity and moderate specificity for identifying frailty. In general, low physical activity, variously measured, was one of the most powerful predictors of future decline in activities of daily living. CONCLUSION: Only a few frailty measures seem to be demonstrably valid, reliable and diagnostically accurate, and have good predictive ability. Among them, the Frailty Index and gait speed emerged as the most useful in routine care and community settings. However, none of the included systematic reviews provided responses that met all of our research questions on their own and there is a need for studies that could fill this gap, covering all these issues within the same study. Nevertheless, it was clear that no suitable tool for assessing frailty appropriately in emergency departments was identified.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,038 | 0,159 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,012 | 0,011 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,036 | 0,024 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».