Frailty Assessment Tools in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Rationale & Objective Frailty represents a loss of physiologic reserve across multiple biological systems, confers a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, and is highly prevalent among people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We evaluated the measurement properties of frailty tools used in CKD and summarized the association of frailty with death and hospitalization. Study Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting & Study Populations Studies assessing multidimensional frailty tools in adults at any stage of CKD and evaluating a measurement property of interest as per the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments taxonomy. Selection Criteria for Studies Observational studies and randomized trials. Data Extraction Risk and precision measurements; measurement properties. Analytical Approach The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment was the clinical standard for frailty identification. We pooled data using random effects models or summarized with narrative synthesis when data were too heterogenous to pool. Results We included 105 studies with data for at least one of the following: discriminative (n=84; 80%), convergent (n=20; 19%), and criterion validity (n=2; 2%); responsiveness (n=9; 9%) and reliability (n=1; 0.1%). For the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP), the pooled adjusted HR (aHR) for mortality was 2.01 (95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.35-2.98; P =0.001; I 2 =58%) and 1.89 (95% CI, 1.25-2.85; P =0.002; I 2 =0%) for hospitalization in kidney failure (KF) populations. The pooled aHR for the Clinical Frailty Scale for mortality in pre-frail versus non-frail was 1.75 (95% CI, 1.17-2.60; I 2 =26%) and 2.20 (95% CI, 1.00-4.80; I 2 =66%) in frail versus non-frail. The Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illness, and Loss of weight scale showed consistent discriminative validity for higher mortality in non-dialysis CKD. The modified FFP (self-reported) showed acceptable discriminative validity and agreement with the FFP in patients with KF. In CKD and KF populations, agreement between clinicians' subjective impression of frailty and frailty tools was low. Limitations Few studies compared the accuracy of frailty tools to the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. Only 1 study reported reliability. Studies were of overall low-moderate quality. Conclusions The FFP and Clinical Frailty Scale showed acceptable discriminant validity for clinical outcomes, and the modified FFP is an alternative tool to use if direct measurements are not feasible. The evidence does not support the use of clinicians' subjective impression to identify frailty. Plain-Language Summary Frailty is a medical condition characterized by the loss of physiological reserve across multiple domains or an increased vulnerability to stress. Frailty is common among people with chronic kidney disease and is associated with poor health outcomes. There are numerous tools to assess frailty but the measurement properties of these tools, either for frailty identification, prognostication, or measuring changes in response to frailty interventions have not been identified in people with CKD. This information is important as frailty in CKD may be confounded by factors, such as those associated with uremia. By conducting this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that frailty status, as measured by the Fried Frailty Phenotype and the Clinical Frailty Scale provided important prognostic information beyond age and clinical factors on the risk of mortality and hospitalization, with an approximate doubling in the hazard for these events among people with kidney failure. We also found that in both the kidney failure and non-dialysis CKD populations, the agreement between clinicians' subjective impression of frailty and the FFP was low. There were limitations across studies, including heterogeneous follow-up period and covariate adjustment that may have influenced the results. In order to make recommendations for frailty tools across measurement domains, future studies should compare the diagnostic accuracy to the clinical standard, geriatric assessment, and examine responsiveness to change.
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 | 0,022 | 0,051 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,017 | 0,032 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
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 ».