Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Measures of frailty in population-based studies: An overview
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.
Show others and affiliations
2013 (English)In: BMC Geriatrics, ISSN 1471-2318, Vol. 13, no 64Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Although research productivity in the field of frailty has risen exponentially in recent years, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the measurement of this syndrome. This overview offers three services: first, we provide a comprehensive catalogue of current frailty measures; second, we evaluate their reliability and validity; third, we report on their popularity of use.

Methods: In order to identify relevant publications, we searched MEDLINE (from its inception in 1948 to May 2011); scrutinized the reference sections of the retrieved articles; and consulted our own files. An indicator of the frequency of use of each frailty instrument was based on the number of times it had been utilized by investigators other than the originators.

Results: Of the initially retrieved 2,166 papers, 27 original articles described separate frailty scales. The number (range: 1 to 38) and type of items (range of domains: physical functioning, disability, disease, sensory impairment, cognition, nutrition, mood, and social support) included in the frailty instruments varied widely. Reliability and validity had been examined in only 26% (7/27) of the instruments. The predictive validity of these scales for mortality varied: for instance, hazard ratios/odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for mortality risk for frail relative to non-frail people ranged from 1.21 (0.78; 1.87) to 6.03 (3.00; 12.08) for the Phenotype of Frailty and 1.57 (1.41; 1.74) to 10.53 (7.06; 15.70) for the Frailty Index. Among the 150 papers which we found to have used at least one of the 27 frailty instruments, 69% (n = 104) reported on the Phenotype of Frailty, 12% (n = 18) on the Frailty Index, and 19% (n = 28) on one of the remaining 25 instruments.

Conclusions: Although there are numerous frailty scales currently in use, reliability and validity have rarely been examined. The most evaluated and frequently used measure is the Phenotype of Frailty.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013. Vol. 13, no 64
Keyword [en]
Frailty, Frail elderly, Measure, Overview, Reliability, Validity
National Category
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology Gerontology, specializing in Medical and Health Sciences Geriatrics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-21148DOI: 10.1186/1471-2318-13-64Local ID: HHJÅldrandeIS, HHJADULTISOAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-21148DiVA: diva2:620945
Available from: 2013-05-12 Created: 2013-05-12 Last updated: 2016-06-30Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Fransson, Eleonor
By organisation
HHJ, Dep. of Natural Science and BiomedicineHHJ. Ageing - living conditions and healthHHJ. ADULT
In the same journal
BMC Geriatrics
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and EpidemiologyGerontology, specializing in Medical and Health SciencesGeriatrics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 261 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf