Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30113393›Full record

Observational studyAnesthesia and analgesia2018

Frailty Phenotypes and Relations With Surgical Outcomes: A Latent Class Analysis.

Furqaan Sadiq, Vanessa L Kronzer, Troy S Wildes, Sherry L McKinnon, Anshuman Sharma, Daniel L Helsten, Lawrence M Scheier, Michael S Avidan, Arbi Ben Abdallah

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Anesthesia and analgesia, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Frailty Status Typologies in Spanish Older Population: Associations with Successful Aging.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    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

9 authors.

Furqaan SadiqFrom the Department of Anesthesiology, Institute of Quality Improvement, Research & Informatics (INQUIRI), Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Vanessa L KronzerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Troy S WildesFrom the Department of Anesthesiology, Institute of Quality Improvement, Research & Informatics (INQUIRI), Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Sherry L McKinnonFrom the Department of Anesthesiology, Institute of Quality Improvement, Research & Informatics (INQUIRI), Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Anshuman SharmaFrom the Department of Anesthesiology, Institute of Quality Improvement, Research & Informatics (INQUIRI), Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Daniel L HelstenFrom the Department of Anesthesiology, Institute of Quality Improvement, Research & Informatics (INQUIRI), Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Lawrence M ScheierLARS Research Institute, Inc, Scottsdale, Arizona.
Michael S AvidanFrom the Department of Anesthesiology, Institute of Quality Improvement, Research & Informatics (INQUIRI), Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
Arbi Ben AbdallahFrom the Department of Anesthesiology, Institute of Quality Improvement, Research & Informatics (INQUIRI), Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesUL1TR000448 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
WOMEN'S HEALTH AGENDAU01AI025903 · NIAID · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI CLIFFORD, DAVID B · 1987 to 2006
$12.5M
Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesTL1TR000449 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$2.5M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR000449NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000448NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI025903
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrailty is an important concept in the care of older adults although controversy remains regarding its defining features and clinical utility. Both the Fried phenotype and the Rockwood deficit accumulation approaches cast frailty as a "burden" without exploring the relative salience of its cardinal markers and their relevance to the patient. New multifactorial perspectives require a reliable assessment of frailty that can validly predict postoperative health outcomes.

methodsIn a retrospective study of 2828 unselected surgical patients, we used item response theory to examine the ability of 32 heterogeneous markers capturing limitations in physical, functional, emotional, and social activity domains to indicate severity of frailty as a latent continuum. Eighteen markers efficiently indicated frailty severity and were then subject to latent class analysis to derive discrete phenotypes. Next, we validated the obtained frailty phenotypes against patient-reported 30-day postoperative outcomes using multivariable logistic regression. Models were adjusted for demographics, comorbidity, type and duration of surgery, and cigarette and alcohol consumption.

resultsThe 18 markers provided psychometric evidence of a single reliable continuum of frailty severity. Latent class analyses produced 3 distinct subtypes, based on patients' endorsement probabilities of the frailty indicators: not frail (49.7%), moderately frail (33.5%), and severely frail (16.7%). Unlike the moderate class, severely frail endorsed emotional health problems in addition to physical burdens and functional limitations. Models adjusting for age, sex, type of anesthesia, and intraoperative factors indicated that severely frail (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-2.50) and moderately frail patients (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.67) both had higher odds of experiencing postoperative complications compared to not frail patients. In a 3-way comparison, a higher proportion of severely frail patients (10.7%) reported poorer quality of life after surgery compared to moderately frail (9.2%) and not frail (8.3%) patients (P < .001). There was no significant difference among these groups in proportions reporting hospital readmission (5.6%, 5.1%, and 3.8%, respectively; P = .067).

conclusionsSelf-report frailty items can accurately discern 3 distinct phenotypes differing in composition and their relations with surgical outcomes. Systematically assessing a wider set of domains including limitations in functional, emotional, and social activities can inform clinicians on what precipitates loss of physiological reserve and profoundly influences patients' lives. This information can help guide the current discussion on frailty and add meaningful clinical tools to the surgical practice.

Indexed as

Surgical Procedures, OperativeActivities of Daily LivingAdultAgedAge FactorsEmotionsFemaleFrail ElderlyFrailtyGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleMental HealthMiddle AgedNutritional StatusPatient Readmission

Identifiers

PMID30113393
PMCPMC6931904

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.