A Comparison of Two Mouse Frailty Assessment Tools.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kane AE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5861875 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesComprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), the gold standard for detecting frailty in elderly cancer patients, is time-consuming and hard to apply in routine clinical practice. Here we compared the performance of two screening tools for frailty, G8 and SAOP2 for their accuracy in identifying vulnerable patients.Material and methodsWe tested G8 and SAOP2 in 282 patients aged 65 or older with a diagnosis of solid cancer and candidate to undergo surgical, medical and/or radiotherapy treatment. CGA, including functional and cognitive status, depression, nutrition, comorbidity, social status and quality of life was used as reference. ROC curves were used to compare two screening tools.ResultsMean patient age was 79 years and 54% were female. Colorectal and breast cancer were the most common types cancer (49% and 24%). Impaired CGA, G8, and SAOP2 were found in 62%, 89%, and 94% of the patients, respectively. SAOP2 had a better sensitivity (AUC 0.85, p<0.032) than G8 (AUC 0.79), with higher performance in breast cancer patients (AUC 0.93) and in patients aged 70-80 years (AUC 0.87).ConclusionsG8 and SAOP2 both showed good screening capacity for frailty in the cancer patient population we examined with SAOP2 showing a slightly better performance than G8.
| S-EPMC6205549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the 5 components of the Fried frailty phenotype (self-reported unintentional weight loss, physical activity questionnaire, gait speed, grip strength, and self-reported exhaustion) for long-term outcomes in elderly survivors of acute coronary syndrome.MethodsA total of 342 consecutive patients (from October 1, 2010, to February 1, 2012) were included. The 5 components of the Fried score and albumin concentration, as malnutrition index, were assessed before hospital discharge. Patients were followed up until April 2020 (median follow-up, 8.7 years). The end point was postdischarge all-cause mortality.ResultsMean ± SD age was 77±7 years and mean ± SD Fried score was 2.0±1.1 points. A total of 216 (63%) patients died. After adjusting for clinical covariates, the Fried phenotype was associated with mortality (per points, hazard ratio [HR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.57; P<.001). Among Fried components, physical activity (HR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.34 to 3.65; P=.002) and gait speed (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.29 to 2.43; P<.001) were the deficits independendtly associated with mortality. Albumin level provided further prognostic information (per increase in g/dL; HR, 0.63, 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88; P=.007). The model adding the components of the Fried score and albumin level to the clinical model showed the highest risk reclassification (integrated discrimination improvement, 0.040; 95% CI, 0.018 to 0.075; P=.001; continuous net reclassification improvement, 0.291; 95% CI, 0.132 to 0.397; P=.001) in comparison with the model using clinical covariates alone.ConclusionFrailty assessment using the Fried phenotype has prognostic value for long-term mortality in elderly survivors of acute coronary syndrome. Physical activity and gait speed are the predictive components of the Fried score. Albumin level provides incremental prognostic information.
| S-EPMC7749270 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aimed to verify the combined use of two frailty tools in predicting mortality in older adults. We used the data of 10,276 Japanese older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) who provided valid responses to two frailty assessment tools in a mail survey in Japan's Kyoto‒Kameoka Prospective cohort study. Frailty status was categorized into four groups depending on the validated frailty screening index and Kihon Checklist, respectively: Non-frailty (n = 5960), Physical frailty (n = 223), Comprehensive frailty (n = 2211), and Combination (n = 1882) groups. Mortality data were collected between July 30, 2011, and November 30, 2016. We assessed the relationship between frailty status and all-cause mortality risk using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. During a median follow-up of 5.3 years, we recorded 1257 deaths. After adjusting for confounders, the Combination group had the highest mortality risk compared with the other groups [Non-frailty: reference; Physical frailty: hazards ratio [HR], 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58 to 1.70); Comprehensive frailty: 1.91 (1.63 to 2.23); Combination: 2.85 (2.44 to 3.22)]. People who are positive for frailty in both instruments have a higher risk of death than those who are positive to one model.
| S-EPMC9440890 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionFrailty has consistently demonstrated associations with poorer healthcare outcomes. Vascular guidelines have recognised the importance of frailty assessment. However, an abundance of frailty tools and a lack of prospective studies confirming suitability of routine frailty assessment in clinical practice has delayed the uptake of these guidelines. The Frailty Assessment in Vascular OUtpatients Review study speaks to this evidence gap. The primary aim is to assess feasibility of implementing routine frailty assessment in a reproducible outpatient setting. Secondary objectives include comparing prognostic values and interuser agreement across five frailty assessment tools.Methods and analysisThis single-centre prospective cohort study of feasibility is conducted in a rapid-referral vascular surgery clinic, serving a population of 2 million. Adults with capacity (>18 years), attending a clinic for any reason, are eligible for inclusion. Five assessments are completed by patient (Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Frail NonDisabled Questionnaire), clinician (CFS, Healthcare Improvement Scotland FRAIL tool and 'Initial Clinical Evaluation') and researcher (11-item modified Frailty Index). Consistent with feasibility objectives, outcome measures include recruitment rates, frailty assessment completion rates, time-to-complete assessments and interuser variability. Electronic follow-up at 30 days and 1 year will assess home-time and mortality as prognostic indicators. Patients treated surgically/endovascularly will undergo additional 30-day and 1-year postoperative follow-up, outcome measures include: surgical procedure, mortality, complications (according to Clavien-Dindo Classification), length of stay, readmission rates, non-home discharge, home-time, higher social care requirements on discharge and amputation-free survival. Prognostic value will be compared by area under receiver operating characteristic curves. Continuous outcome variables will be analysed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Interuser agreement will be compared by percentage agreement in Cohen's kappa coefficient. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is sponsored by National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde (R&IUGN23CE014). London-Riverside REC (23/PR/0062) granted ethical approval. Results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed vascular surgery and geriatric medicine themed journals and presentation at similar scientific conferences.Trials registration numberNCT06040658. Stage of study: pre-results.
| S-EPMC10729052 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Screening tools have been developed to identify patients warranting a complete geriatric assessment (GA). However, GA lacks standardization and does not capture important aspects of geriatric oncology practice. We measured and compared the diagnostic performance of screening tools G8 and modified G8 according to multiple clinically relevant reference standards. We included 1136 cancer patients ≥ 70 years old referred for GA (ELCAPA cohort; median age, 80 years; males, 52%; main locations: digestive (36.3%), breast (16%), and urinary tract (14.8%); metastases, 43.5%). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) estimates were compared between both tools against: (1) the detection of ≥1 or (2) ≥2 GA impairments, (3) the prescription of ≥1 geriatric intervention and the identification of an unfit profile according to (4) a latent class typology, expert-based classifications from (5) Balducci, (6) the International Society of Geriatric Oncology task force (SIOG), or using (7) a GA frailty index according to the Rockwood accumulation of deficits principle. AUROC values were ≥0.80 for both tools under all tested definitions. They were statistically significantly higher for the modified G8 for six reference standards: ≥1 GA impairment (0.93 vs. 0.89), ≥2 GA impairments (0.90 vs. 0.87), ≥1 geriatric intervention (0.85 vs. 0.81), unfit according to Balducci (0.86 vs. 0.80) and SIOG classifications (0.88 vs. 0.83), and according to the GA frailty index (0.86 vs. 0.84). Our findings demonstrate the robustness of both screening tools against different reference standards, with evidence of better diagnostic performance of the modified G8.
| S-EPMC8750824 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aimto evaluate validity and concordance of Screening Tool for the Assessment of Malnutrition in Pediatrics (STAMP) and Screening Tool for Risk On Nutritional status and Growth (STRONGkids) screening tools for assessment of nutritional risk in pediatric inpatients.MethodsProspective longitudinal observational multicenter study in children aged 1 month or older admitted as inpatients. Weight, height, cause of admission, demographic data, length of stay, and nutritional interventions were recorded. STAMP and STRONGkids were applied within the first 72 h of admission. Anthropometric measurements were recorded again 12-18 months after admission.ResultsEighty-one patients with median age of 4.1 years completed the study. Agreement between tools was moderate (κ = 0.47). STAMP had a greater tendency to classify patients as high risk (12.3% vs. 2.5%). Both tools showed very weak correlation with height for age. All undernourished patients at the beginning and the end of the study were classified as medium or high risk by STAMP and STRONGkids (100% sensitivity), although specificity was below 50% in all cases. There were no differences in length of stay based on nutritional risk with any of the tools.ConclusionsSTAMP and STRONGkids demonstrated moderate agreement, with high sensitivity but low specificity for the diagnosis of undernutrition. Further studies are required to analyze cost-effectiveness of these tools and nutritional interventions derived from them.
| S-EPMC7281986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFrailty is associated with multiple adverse outcomes in stage-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD-5) and upwards of one third of people receiving haemodialysis (HD) are frail. While many frailty screening methods are available in both uremic and non-uremic populations, their implementation in clinical settings is often challenged by time and resource constraints. In this study, we explored the diagnostic accuracy of time-efficient screening tools in people receiving HD.MethodsA convenience sample of 76 people receiving HD [mean age = 61.1 years (SD = 14), 53.9% male] from three Renal Units were recruited for this cross-sectional study. Frailty was diagnosed by means of the Fried phenotype. Physical performance-based screening tools encompassed handgrip strength, 15-ft gait speed, timed up and go (TUG), and five-repetition sit to stand (STS-5) tests. In addition, participants completed the SF-36 Health Survey, the short-form international physical activity questionnaire and the Tinetti falls efficacy scale (FES) as further frailty-related measures. Outcome measures included the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV). The diagnostic performance of screening tools in assessing fall-risk was also investigated.ResultsOverall, 36.8% of participants were classified as frail. All the examined instruments could significantly discriminate frailty status in the study population. Gait speed [AUC = 0.89 (95%CI: 0.81-0.98), sensitivity = 75%, specificity = 93%] and TUG [AUC = 0.90 (95%CI: 0.80-0.99), sensitivity = 89%, specificity = 85%] exhibited the highest diagnostic accuracy. There was a significant difference in gait speed AUC (20%, p = 0.013) between participants aged 65 years or older (n = 36) and those under 65 years of age (n = 40), with better discriminating performance in the younger sub-group. The Tinetti FES was the only instrument showing good diagnostic accuracy (AUCs≥0.80) for both frailty (sensitivity = 82%, specificity = 79%) and fall-risk (sensitivity = 82%, specificity = 71%) screening.ConclusionsThis cross-sectional study revealed that time- and cost-efficient walking performance measures can accurately be used for frailty-screening purposes in people receiving HD. While self-selected gait speed had an excellent performance in people under 65 years of age, TUG may be a more suitable screening method for elderly patients (≥65 years). The Tinetti FES may be a clinically useful test when physical testing is not achievable.
| S-EPMC8252257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveGiven the aging population and growing burden of frailty, we conducted this scoping review to describe the available literature regarding the use and impact of frailty assessment tools in the assessment and care of emergency department (ED) patients older than 60 years.MethodsA search was made of the available literature using the Covidence system using various search terms. Inclusion criteria comprised peer-reviewed literature focusing on frailty screening tools used for a geriatric population (60+ years of age) presenting to EDs. An additional search of PubMed, EBSCO, and CINAHL for articles published in the last 5 years was conducted toward the end of the review process (January 2023) to search specifically for literature describing interventions for frailty, yielding additional articles for review. Exclusion criteria comprised articles focusing on an age category other than geriatric and care environments outside the emergency care setting.ResultsA total of 135 articles were screened for inclusion and 48 duplicates were removed. Of the 87 remaining articles, 20 were deemed irrelevant, leaving 67 articles for full-text review. Twenty-eight were excluded for not meeting inclusion criteria, leaving 39 full-text studies. Use of frailty screening tools were reported in the triage, care, and discharge decision-making phases of the ED care trajectory, with varying reports of usefulness for clinical decision-making.ConclusionThe literature reports tools, scales, and instruments for identifying frailty in older patients at ED triage; multiple frailty scores or tools exist with varying levels of utilization. Interventions for frailty directed at the ED environment were scant. Further research is needed to determine the usefulness of frailty identification in the context of emergency care, the effects of care delivery interventions or educational initiatives for front-line medical professionals on patient-oriented outcomes, and to ensure these initiatives are acceptable for patients.
| S-EPMC10755799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEndovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) allows us to intervene on patients otherwise considered poor candidates for open repair. Despite its importance in determining operative approach, no comparison has been made between the subjective "eyeball test" and an objective measurement of preoperative frailty for EVAR patients.Materials and methodsPatients undergoing elective EVAR were identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) database (2003-2017). Patients were classified "unfit" based on a surgeon-reported variable. Frailty was defined using the VQI-derived Risk Analysis Index, which includes sex, age, BMI, renal failure, congestive heart failure, dyspnea, preoperative ambulation, and functional status. The association between fitness and/or frailty and adverse outcomes was determined by logistic regression.ResultsA total of 11,694 patients undergoing elective EVAR were included of which only 18.1% were "unfit," whereas 34.6% were "frail" and overall 43.6% "unfit or frail." Patients deemed "unfit" or "frail" had significantly increased odds of mortality, complications, and nonhome discharge (P < 0.001), and both frailty and unfitness generated negative predictive values for these outcomes greater than 93%. In adjusted logistic regression, the addition of objective frailty significantly improved model performance in predicting nonhome discharge (C-statistic 0.65 versus 0.71, P < 0.001) and complications (0.59 versus 0.61, P = 0.01), but similarly predicted mortality (0.74 versus 0.73, P = 0.99).ConclusionsPreoperative frailty assessment provides a useful objective measure of risk stratification as an adjunct to a physician's clinical intuition. The addition of frailty expands the pool of high-risk patients who are more likely to experience adverse postoperative events after elective EVAR and may benefit from uniquely tailored perioperative interventions.
| S-EPMC7643437 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo assess and compare the feasibility and prognostic value of various frailty assessment tools among decompensated cirrhosis inpatients.MethodsOur prospective observational registry included consecutive patients admitted for cirrhosis between June 2017 and July 2018. Exclusion criteria were intensive-care unit admission, hepatocellular carcinoma outside of the Milan criteria, and other malignancies. Frailty at baseline was assessed with the Liver Frailty Index (LFI), Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Fried Frailty Score (FFS), and Short Physical Performance Battery test (SPPB). The follow-up lasted for at least 180 days.ResultsThe study enrolled 168 patients (35.1% women, median age 57.9 years). The most frequent primary etiology was alcohol-related liver disease (78.6%). The Median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) was 16. The 80th percentile of frailty scores was LFI>5.4, CFS>4, FFS>3, and SPPB<5, and it identified patients with higher mortality. LFI and CFS had the highest numerical prognostic value for in-hospital, and 90- and 180-day mortality. In a bivariate analysis of the risk of death or liver transplantation, the combination of MELD and LFI had the highest concordance (0.771±0.04). In a multivariate model, MELD score (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.12-1.22), overt encephalopathy (2.39, 1.27-4.48), infection at baseline (2.32, 1.23-4.34), and numerical LFI (1.41, 1.02-1.95) were independent predictors of overall mortality.ConclusionFrailty assessment using the evaluated tools is feasible among hospitalized cirrhotic patients, identifying those with worse prognosis. CFS had the highest applicability and accuracy for the initial assessment and LFI for the initial and follow-up assessments.
| S-EPMC7976891 | biostudies-literature