Dataset Information

A prospective study assessing agreement and reliability of a geriatric evaluation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The present study takes place within a geriatric program, aiming at improving the diagnosis and management of geriatric syndromes in primary care. Within this program it was of prime importance to be able to rely on a robust and reproducible geriatric consultation to use as a gold standard for evaluating a primary care brief assessment tool. The specific objective of the present study was thus assessing the agreement and reliability of a comprehensive geriatric consultation.

Method

The study was conducted at the outpatient clinic of the Service of Geriatric Medicine, University of Lausanne, Switzerland. All community-dwelling older persons aged 70 years and above were eligible. Patients were excluded if they hadn't a primary care physician, they were unable to speak French, or they were already assessed by a geriatrician within the last 12 months. A set of 9 geriatricians evaluated 20 patients. Each patient was assessed twice within a 2-month delay. Geriatric consultations were based on a structured evaluation process, leading to rating the following geriatric conditions: functional, cognitive, visual, and hearing impairment, mood disorders, risk of fall, osteoporosis, malnutrition, and urinary incontinence. Reliability and agreement estimates on each of these items were obtained using a three-way Intraclass Correlation and a three-way Observed Disagreement index. The latter allowed a decomposition of overall disagreement into disagreements due to each source of error variability (visit, rater and random).

Results

Agreement ranged between 0.62 and 0.85. For most domains, geriatrician-related error variability explained an important proportion of disagreement. Reliability ranged between 0 and 0.8. It was poor/moderate for visual impairment, malnutrition and risk of fall, and good/excellent for functional/cognitive/hearing impairment, osteoporosis, incontinence and mood disorders.

Conclusions

Six out of nine items of the geriatric consultation described in this study (functional/cognitive/hearing impairment, osteoporosis, incontinence and mood disorders) present a good to excellent reliability and can safely be used as a reference (gold standard) to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a primary care brief assessment tool. More objective/significant measures are needed to improve reliability of malnutrition, visual impairment, and risk of fall assessment before they can serve as a safe gold standard of a primary care tool.

SUBMITTER: Locatelli I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5517926 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Geriatric syndromes are rarely detected in family medicine. Within the AGE program (active geriatric evaluation), a brief assessment tool (BAT) designed for family physicians (FP) was developed and its diagnostic performance estimated by comparison to a comprehensive geriatric assessment.This prospective diagnostic study was conducted in four primary care sites in Switzerland. Participants were aged at least 70 years and attending a routine appointment with their physician, without previous documented geriatric assessment. Participants were assessed by their family physicians using the BAT, and by a geriatriciant who performed a comprehensive geriatric assessment within the following two-month period (reference standard). Both the BAT and the full assessment targeted eight geriatric syndromes: cognitive impairment, mood impairment, urinary incontinence, visual impairment, hearing loss, undernutrition, osteoporosis and gait and balance impairment. Diagnostic accuracy of the BAT was estimated in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values; secondary outcomes were measures of feasibility, in terms of added consultation time and comprehensiveness in applying the BAT items.Prevalence of the geriatric syndromes in participants (N=85, 46 (54.1%) women, mean age 78 years (SD 6))ranged from 30.0% (malnutrition and cognitive impairment) to 71.0% (visual impairment), with a median number of 3 syndromes (IQR 2 to 4) per participant. Sensitivity of the BAT ranged from 25.0% for undernutrition (95%CI 9.8% - 46.7%) to 82.1% for hearing impairment (95%CI 66.5% - 92.5%), while specificity ranged from 45.8% for visual impairment (95%CI 25.6-67.2) to 87.7% for undernutrition (76.3% to 94.9%). Finally, most negative predictive values (NPV) were between 73.5% and 84.1%, excluding visual impairment with a NPV of 50.0%. Family physicians reported BAT use as per instructions for 76.7% of the syndromes assessed.Although the BAT does not replace a comprehensive geriatric assessment, it is a useful and appropriate tool for the FP to screen elderly patients for most geriatric syndromes.The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on February 20, 2013 ( NCT01816087 ).

Project description:BACKGROUND:The demographic changes in Brazil as a result of population aging is one of the fastest in the world. The far-reaching new challenges that come with a large older population are particularly disquieting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Longitudinal studies must be completed in LMICs to investigate the social and biological determinants of aging and the consequences of such demographic changes in their context. Therefore, we designed the Prospective GERiatric Observational (ProGERO) study, a longitudinal study of outpatient older adults in São Paulo, Brazil, to collect data both on aging and chronic diseases, and investigate characteristics associated with adverse outcomes in this population. METHODS:The ProGERO study takes place in a geriatric outpatient clinic in the largest academic medical center in Latin America. We performed baseline health examinations in 2017 and will complete subsequent in-person visits every 3 years when new participants will also be recruited. We will use periodic telephone interviews to collect information on the outcomes of interest between in-person visits. The baseline evaluation included data on demographics, medical history, physical examination, and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA; including multimorbidity, medications, social support, functional status, cognition, depressive symptoms, nutritional status, pain assessment, frailty, gait speed, handgrip strength, and chair-stands test). We used a previously validated CGA-based model to rank participants according to mortality risk (low, medium, high). Our selected outcomes were falls, disability, health services utilization (emergency room visits and hospital admissions), institutionalization, and death. We will follow participants for at least 10 years. RESULTS:We included 1336 participants with a mean age of 82?±?8?years old. Overall, 70% were women, 31% were frail, and 43% had a Charlson comorbidity index score???3. According to our CGA-based model, the incidence of death in 1 year varied significantly across categories (low-risk?=?0.6%; medium-risk?=?7.4%; high-risk?=?17.5%; P?<?0.001). CONCLUSION:The ProGERO study will provide detailed clinical data and explore the late-life trajectories of outpatient older patients during a follow-up period of at least 10?years. Moreover, the study will substantially contribute to new information on the predictors of aging, senescence, and senility, particularly in frail and pre-frail outpatients from an LMIC city.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Treatment of fractures in the elderly population is a clinical challenge due partly to the presence of comorbidities. In a Geriatric Fracture Centre (GFC), patients are co-managed by a geriatrician in an attempt to improve clinical outcomes and reduce morbidity and mortality. Until now the beneficial effect of orthogeriatric co-management has not been definitively proven. The primary objective of this study is to determine the effect of GFC on predefined major adverse events related to a hip fracture compared to usual care centres (UCC). The secondary objectives include assessments in quality of life, patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Two hundred and sixty-six elderly patients diagnosedwith hip fracture and planned to be treated with osteosynthesis or endoprosthesis in either a GFC or UCC study site will be recruited, 133 per type of centre. All procedures and management will be done according to the site's standard of care. Study-related visits will be performed at the following time points: preoperative, intraoperative, discharge from the orthopaedic/trauma department, discharge to definite residential status, 12 weeks and 12 months postsurgery. Data collected include demographics, residential status, adverse events, patient-reported outcomes, fall history, costs and resources related to treatment. The risk of major adverse events at 12 months will be calculated for each centre type; patient-reported outcomes will be analysed by mixed effects regression models to estimate differences in mean scores between baseline and follow-ups whereas cost-effectiveness will be assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval for this study was granted from the local Ethics Committees or Institutional Review Board from each of the participating sites prior to patient enrolment. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at different conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02297581; pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral criteria have been used to assess agreement between replicate slide readings of malaria parasite density. Such criteria may be based on percent difference, or absolute difference, or a combination. Neither the rationale for choosing between these types of criteria, nor that for choosing the magnitude of difference which defines acceptable agreement, are clear. The current paper seeks a procedure which avoids the disadvantages of these current options and whose parameter values are more clearly justified.Methods and resultsVariation of parasite density within a slide is expected, even when it has been prepared from a homogeneous sample. This places lower limits on sensitivity and observer agreement, quantified by the Poisson distribution. This means that, if a criterion of fixed percent difference criterion is used for satisfactory agreement, the number of discrepant readings is over-estimated at low parasite densities. With a criterion of fixed absolute difference, the same happens at high parasite densities. For an ideal slide, following the Poisson distribution, a criterion based on a constant difference in square root counts would apply for all densities. This can be back-transformed to a difference in absolute counts, which, as expected, gives a wider range of acceptable agreement at higher average densities. In an example dataset from Tanzania, observed differences in square root counts correspond to a 95% limits of agreement of -2,800 and +2,500 parasites/microl at average density of 2,000 parasites/microl, and -6,200 and +5,700 parasites/microl at 10,000 parasites/microl. However, there were more outliers beyond those ranges at higher densities, meaning that actual coverage of these ranges was not a constant 95%, but decreased with density. In a second study, a trial of microscopist training, the corresponding ranges of agreement are wider and asymmetrical: -8,600 to +5,200/microl, and -19,200 to +11,700/microl, respectively. By comparison, the optimal limits of agreement, corresponding to Poisson variation, are +/- 780 and +/- 1,800 parasites/microl, respectively. The focus of this approach on the volume of blood read leads to other conclusions. For example, no matter how large a volume of blood is read, some densities are too low to be reliably detected, which in turn means that disagreements on slide positivity may simply result from within-slide variation, rather than reading errors.ConclusionsThe proposed method defines limits of acceptable agreement in a way which allows for the natural increase in variability with parasite density. This includes defining the levels of between-reader variability, which are consistent with random variation: disagreements within these limits should not trigger additional readings. This approach merits investigation in other settings, in order to determine both the extent of its applicability, and appropriate numerical values for limits of agreement.

Project description:The aim of the study was to examine the test-retest reliability and agreement across methods for assessing individual force-velocity (FV) profiles of the lower limbs in athletes. Using a multicenter approach, 27 male athletes completed all measurements for the main analysis, with up to 82 male and female athletes on some measurements. The athletes were tested twice before and twice after a 2- to 6-month period of regular training and sport participation. The double testing sessions were separated by ~1 week. Individual FV-profiles were acquired from incremental loading protocols in squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ) and leg press. A force plate, linear encoder and a flight time calculation method were used for measuring force and velocity during SJ and CMJ. A linear regression was fitted to the average force and velocity values for each individual test to extrapolate the FV-variables: theoretical maximal force (F0), velocity (V0), power (Pmax), and the slope of the FV-profile (SFV). Despite strong linearity (R2>0.95) for individual FV-profiles, the SFV was unreliable for all measurement methods assessed during vertical jumping (coefficient of variation (CV): 14-30%, interclass correlation coefficient (ICC): 0.36-0.79). Only the leg press exercise, of the four FV-variables, showed acceptable reliability (CV:3.7-8.3%, ICC:0.82-0.98). The agreement across methods for F0 and Pmax ranged from (Pearson r): 0.56-0.95, standard error of estimate (SEE%): 5.8-18.8, and for V0 and SFV r: -0.39-0.78, SEE%: 12.2-37.2. With a typical error of 1.5 cm (5-10% CV) in jump height, SFV and V0 cannot be accurately obtained, regardless of the measurement method, using a loading range corresponding to 40-70% of F0. Efforts should be made to either reduce the variation in jumping performance or to assess loads closer to the FV-intercepts. Coaches and researchers should be aware of the poor reliability of the FV-variables obtained from vertical jumping, and of the differences across measurement methods.