Dataset Information

Diagnostic and predictive accuracy of the Clinical Frailty Scale among hospitalised older medical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Frailty is a common condition affecting older adults and is associated with increased mortality and adverse outcomes. Identification of older adults at risk of adverse outcomes is central to subsequent resource planning and targeted interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis will examine the: (1) diagnostic accuracy of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) in identifying hospitalised adults ?65 years with frailty and a medical diagnosis compared with the reference standard Frailty Index or Frailty Phenotype and (2) predictive value of the CFS in determining those at increased risk of subsequent adverse outcomes.

Methods and analysis

We will include cross-sectional, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, and randomised controlled trials that assess either the diagnostic accuracy of the CFS when compared with the reference standard Frailty Index/Frailty Phenotype or the predictive validity of the CFS to predict subsequent adverse outcomes in hospitalised adults over 65 years with medical complaints. Adverse outcomes include falls, functional decline, unplanned Emergency Department attendance, emergency rehospitalisation, nursing home admission or death. A systematic search will be conducted in Embase, AMED, MEDLINE (Ebsco, Ovid, Pubmed), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library. Studies will be limited to those published from 2005 to 30 October 2019. Two independent reviewers will screen all titles and abstracts to identify relevant studies. The methodological quality of studies will be independently assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. A CFS score of >4?will be used to identify frailty. We will construct 2×2 tables and determine true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives for each study when compared with the reference standard and for each adverse outcome. A bivariate random effects model will be applied to generate pooled summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. We will disseminate our findings through a peer-reviewed journal.

SUBMITTER: Leahy A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7818826 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic and predictive accuracy of the Clinical Frailty Scale among hospitalised older medical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Leahy Aoife A O'Connor Margaret M Condon Jennifer J Heywood Sarah S Shanahan Elaine E Peters Catherine C Galvin Rose R

BMJ open 20210120 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Frailty is a common condition affecting older adults and is associated with increased mortality and adverse outcomes. Identification of older adults at risk of adverse outcomes is central to subsequent resource planning and targeted interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis will examine the: (1) diagnostic accuracy of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) in identifying hospitalised adults ≥65 years with frailty and a medical diagnosis compared with the reference st ...[more]

PMID: 33472780

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Delirium is a common and serious clinical syndrome which is often missed in routine clinical care. The core cognitive feature is inattention. We developed a novel bedside neuropsychological test for assessing inattention in delirium implemented on a smartphone platform (DelApp). We aim to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the DelApp in a representative cohort of older hospitalised patients. METHODS:This is a prospective study of older non-scheduled hospitalised patients (target n?=?500, age ? 65), recruited from elderly care and acute orthopaedic wards. Exclusion criteria are: non-English speakers; severe vision or hearing impairment; photosensitive epilepsy. A structured reference standard delirium assessment based on DSM-5 criteria will be used, which includes a cognitive test battery administered by a trained assessor (Orientation-Memory-Concentration Test, Abbreviated Mental Test-10, Delirium Rating Severity Scale-Revised-98, digit span, months and days backwards, Vigilance A' test) and assessment of arousal (Observational Scale of Level of Arousal, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale). Prior change in cognition will be documented using the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly. Patients will be categorized as delirium (with/without dementia), possible delirium, dementia, no cognitive impairment, or undetermined. A separate assessor (blinded to diagnosis and assessments) will administer the DelApp index test within 3 h of the reference standard assessment. The DelApp comprises assessment of arousal (score 0-4) and sustained attention (score 0-6), yielding a total score between 0 and 10 (higher score?=?better performance). Outcomes (length of stay, mortality and discharge location) will be collected at 12 weeks. We will evaluate a priori cutpoints derived from a previous case-control study. Measures of the accuracy of DelApp will include sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under the ROC curve. We plan repeat assessments on up to 4 occasions in a purposive subsample of 30 patients (15 delirium, 15 no delirium) to examine changes over time. DISCUSSION:This study evaluates the diagnostic test accuracy of a novel smartphone test for delirium in a representative cohort of older hospitalised patients, including those with dementia. DelApp has the potential to be a convenient, objective method of improving delirium assessment for older people in acute care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical trials.gov, NCT02590796 . Registered on 29 Oct 2015. Protocol version 5, dated 25 July 2016.

Project description:Little is known about resilience in an internal medicine setting. We aimed to assess the relationship between resilience and frailty and other clinical and sociodemographic characteristics in a cohort of prospectively enrolled hospitalised patients. In 2017-2019, we consecutively enrolled patients in our internal medicine wards. We selected all patients who filled in the 25-item Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Mean resilience was evaluated according to baseline demographic (i.e., age, sex, marital and socioeconomic status) and clinical (i.e., Cumulative Illness Rating Scale [CIRS], Edmonton Frail Scale [EFS], Barthel index, Short Blessed test, length of stay [LOS]) data. A multivariable analysis for assessing factors affecting resilience was fitted. Overall, 143 patients (median age 69 years, interquartile range 52-79, 74 females) were included. Resilience was significantly lower in frail (p = 0.010), elderly (p = 0.021), dependent (p = 0.032), and more clinically (p = 0.028) and cognitively compromised patients (p = 0.028), and in those with a low educational status (p = 0.032). No relation between resilience and LOS was noticed (p = 0.597). Frail patients were significantly older (p < 0.001), had a greater disease burden as measured by CIRS comorbidity (p < 0.001) and severity indexes (p < 0.001), were more dependent (p < 0.001), more cognitively impaired (p < 0.001), and displayed a lower educational level (p = 0.011) compared to non-frail patients. At multivariable analysis, frailty (p = 0.022) and dependency (p = 0.031; according to the Barthel index) were associated with lower resilience in the age groups 18-64 and ≥ 65 years, respectively. Low resilience was associated with frailty and dependency with an age-dependent fashion. Studies assessing the impact of this finding on important health outcomes are needed. Clinical Complexity in Internal Medicine Wards. San MAtteo Complexity Study (SMAC); NCT03439410 . Registered 01/11/2017.

Project description:BackgroundInappropriate prescribing (IP) is common in hospitalised older adults with frailty. However, it is not known whether the presence of frailty confers an increased risk of mortality and readmissions from IP nor whether rectifying IP reduces this risk. This review was conducted to determine whether IP increases the risk of adverse outcomes in hospitalised middle-aged and older adults with frailty.MethodsA systematic review was conducted on IP in hospitalised middle-aged (45-64 years) and older adults (≥ 65 years) with frailty. This review considered multiple types of IP including potentially inappropriate medicines, prescribing omissions and drug interactions. Both observational and interventional studies were included. The outcomes were mortality and hospital readmissions. The databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, World of Science, SCOPUS and the Cochrane Library. The search was updated to 12 July 2024. Meta-analysis was performed to pool risk estimates using the random effects model.ResultsA total of 569 studies were identified and seven met the inclusion criteria, all focused on the older population. One of the five observational studies found an association between IP and emergency department visits and readmissions at specific time points. Three of the observational studies were amenable to meta-analysis which showed no significant association between IP and hospital readmissions (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.90-1.31). Meta-analysis of the subgroup assessing Beers criteria medicines demonstrated that there was a 27% increase in the risk of hospital readmissions (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03-1.57) with this type of IP. In meta-analysis of the two interventional studies, there was a 37% reduced risk of mortality (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.40-1.00) with interventions that reduced IP compared to usual care but no difference in hospital readmissions (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19-3.67).ConclusionsInterventions to reduce IP were associated with reduced risk of mortality, but not readmissions, compared to usual care in older adults with frailty. The use of Beers criteria medicines was associated with hospital readmissions in this group. However, there was limited evidence of an association between IP more broadly and mortality or hospital readmissions. Further high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Project description:Aims and objectivesTo identify and compare frailty instruments used with hospitalised orthopaedic patients aged over 65.BackgroundFrailty predicts clinical events in orthopaedic patients aged over 65. However, the strengths and limitations of different approaches to measuring frailty in this population are rarely discussed. As such, a comprehensive review to address the gap is needed.DesignScoping review using Arksey and O'Malley framework.MethodsPubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and EMBASE databases were searched to identify studies published from 2006 to 2020 regarding frailty instruments in older orthopaedic patients. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses were followed.ResultsThe initial search resulted in 1,471 articles. After review against inclusion and exclusion criteria, a final set of 31 articles containing 15 unique frailty instruments were evaluated. Most of the articles were from Western countries. Fried's phenotype and Frailty Index were commonly used. The frailty index was mostly modified to measure frailty. In hip fracture, physical function items were frequently modified in the measurement of frailty. Trained physicians and nurses administered most frailty instruments. Frailty screening was commonly conducted at hospital admission and used to prognosticate both postoperative complications and hospital outcomes. Most instruments could be completed within 10 min. Reported psychometrics had acceptable reliability and validity.ConclusionMany reliable frailty measures have been used in the inpatient orthopaedic settings; however, evidence is still lacking for a gold standard frailty instrument. More research is needed to identify the best-performing measure. Frailty evaluation in patients with physical limitations is challenging with existing instruments. Clinical context, resources required and instrument quality are essential factors in selecting a frailty instrument.Relevance to clinical practiceMusculoskeletal symptoms in older patients may bias frailty assessment. Proactive frailty screening with valid and practical instruments is vital to strengthen preoperative risk stratification and improve post-surgical outcomes.

Project description:IntroductionFrailty is one of the most challenging aspects of population ageing due to its association with increased risk of poor health outcomes and quality of life. General practice provides an ideal setting for the prevention and management of frailty via the implementation of preventive measures such as early identification through screening.Methods and analysisOur study will evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and diagnostic test accuracy of several screening instruments in diagnosing frailty among community-dwelling Australians aged 75+ years who have recently made an appointment to see their general practitioner (GP). We will recruit 240 participants across 2 general practice sites within South Australia. We will invite eligible patients to participate and consent to the study via mail. Consenting participants will attend a screening appointment to undertake the index tests: 2 self-reported (Reported Edmonton Frail Scale and Kihon Checklist) and 5 (Frail Scale, Groningen Frailty Index, Program on Research for Integrating Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy (PRISMA-7), Edmonton Frail Scale and Gait Speed Test) administered by a practice nurse (a Registered Nurse working in general practice). We will randomise test order to reduce bias. Psychosocial measures will also be collected via questionnaire at the appointment. A blinded researcher will then administer two reference standards (the Frailty Phenotype and Adelaide Frailty Index). We will determine frailty by a cut-point of 3 of 5 criteria for the Phenotype and 9 of 42 items for the AFI. We will determine accuracy by analysis of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios. We will assess feasibility and acceptability by: 1) collecting data about the instruments prior to collection; 2) interviewing screeners after data collection; 3) conducting a pilot survey with a 10% sample of participants.Ethics and disseminationThe Torrens University Higher Research Ethics Committee has approved this study. We will disseminate findings via publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at relevant conferences.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic and predictive accuracy of the Clinical Frailty Scale among hospitalised older medical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Publications

Diagnostic and predictive accuracy of the Clinical Frailty Scale among hospitalised older medical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets