Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26812520›Full record

SynthesisThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2016

Validity, Reliability and Feasibility of Tools to Identify Frail Older Patients in Inpatient Hospital Care: A Systematic Review.

R M J Warnier, E van Rossum, E van Velthuijsen, W J Mulder, J M G A Schols, G I J M Kempen

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readEvaluation StudySystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02923843 nacompletednot on this map

Are Care Given by a Geriatric Hospital-Based Out Patient-Care Team Better Than Usual Care? - a Randomised Controlled Trial (The GerOP-Ca-trial)

TypeinterventionalSponsorRegion SkaneRan2016 to 2020Enrolled450ConditionsElderly, FrailArmsComprehensive Geriatric Assessment
NCT03794674 completednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Validation of a Record-based Frailty Assessment According to the Multidimensional Prognostic Index

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorUniversity of AarhusRan2018 to 2019Enrolled92ConditionsFrail Elderly SyndromeArmsNo intervention.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Reliability, Validity, and Feasibility of the Frail-VIG Index.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

R M J WarnierRMJ Warnier, Maastricht University Medical Center, Department of Integrated Care, Elderly care, PO-Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands, Telephone: 0031-433877540, Fax: 0031-433876527, Email: ron.warnier@mumc.nl.
E van Rossum
E van Velthuijsen
W J Mulder
J M G A Schols
G I J M Kempen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of this study is to identify and review screening tools for frailty in older adults admitted to inpatient hospital care with respect to their validity, reliability and feasibility.

methodsStudies were identified through systematically searching PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase and PsycINFO and screening reference lists till June 2014. Papers dealing with screening tools aimed at identifying frail older patients in in-hospital care, and including information about validity, reliability or feasibility, were included in the review. The quality of the included studies was critically appraised via the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS).

resultsFrom the originally identified 2001 studies 32 studies met the inclusion criteria, in which 16 screening tools were presented. The screening tools showed different characteristics with respect to the number of items, the method of administration and the domains included. The most frequently studied tools with respect to predictive validity were the Identification Seniors At Risk (ISAR) and Triage Risk Stratification Tool (TRST). Studies retrieved poorer information about reliability and feasibility. Overall sensitivity was fairly good. The ISAR, ISAR-HP (Identification Seniors At Risk Hospitalized Patients) and Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) generally had the best sensitivity.

conclusionsMany screening tools are available for daily practice. These tools to identify frail older patients in inpatient hospital care could be useful. For no tool, however, is clear evidence available yet regarding validity, reliability and feasibility. The overall sensitivity of the included screening tools was fairly good, whereas information on reliability and feasibility was lacking for most tools. In future research more attention should be given to the latter items.

Indexed as

Frail ElderlyHospitalizationAgedFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansInpatientsMaleReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentValidation Studies as Topic

Identifiers

PMID26812520
PMCPMC12877626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.