Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30770722›Full record

Trial reportBMC geriatrics2019

The feasibility of assessing frailty and sarcopenia in hospitalised older people: a comparison of commonly used tools.

Kinda Ibrahim, Fiona F A Howson, David J Culliford, Avan A Sayer, Helen C Roberts

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC geriatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kinda IbrahimAcademic Geriatric Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Fiona F A HowsonUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
David J CullifordNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (NIHR CLAHRC) Wessex, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Avan A SayerAcademic Geriatric Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Helen C RobertsAcademic Geriatric Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. hcr@soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5291-1880
National Institute for Health Research · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBNIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrailty and sarcopenia are common amongst hospitalised older people and associated with poor healthcare outcomes. Widely recognised tools for their identification are the Fried Frailty Phenotype, its self-report version the FRAIL Scale, and the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) criteria. We studied the feasibility of using these tools in a hospital setting of acute wards for older people.

methodsPatients aged 70+ years admitted to acute wards at one English hospital were prospectively recruited. The Fried Frailty Phenotype was assessed through measured grip strength, gait speed and questions on unintentional weight loss, exhaustion and physical activity. The 5-item self-reported FRAIL scale questionnaire covering the same domains was completed. Agreement between the two tools was reported using the Cohen kappa statistic. The EWGSOP criteria (gait speed, grip strength and muscle mass) were assessed by additional bedside measurement of muscle mass with bioelectrical impedance.

resultsTwo hundred thirty three participants (median age 80 years, 60% men) were recruited. Most (221, 95%) had their grip strength measured: 4 (2%) were unable and data were missing for 8 (3%). Only 70 (30%) completed the gait speed assessment: 153 (66%) were unable with missing data on 10 (4%). 113 (49%) participants had the bioelectrical impedance assessment. Muscle mass measurement was not possible for 84 (36%) participants: 25 patients declined, 21 patients were unavailable, 22 results were technically invalid, and 16 had clinical contra-indications. Data on 36 (15%) were missing. Considering inability to complete grip strength or gait speed assessments as low values, data for the Fried Frailty Phenotype was available for 218 (94%) of participants; frailty was identified in 105 (48%). 230 (99%) patients completed the FRAIL scale; frailty was identified among 77 (34%). There was moderate agreement between the two frailty tools (Kappa value of 0.46, 95%CI: 0.34 to 0.58). Complete data for the EWGOSP criteria were only available for 124 (53%) patients of whom 40 (32%) had sarcopenia.

conclusionIt was feasible to measure grip strength and complete the FRAIL scale among older inpatients in hospital. Measuring gait speed and muscle mass to identify sarcopenia was challenging in the acute setting.

trial registrationISRCTN registry (ID ISRCTN16391145 ) on 30.12.14.

Indexed as

Frail ElderlyAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFeasibility StudiesFemaleFrailtyGeriatric AssessmentHand StrengthHospitalizationHumansMaleProspective StudiesSarcopeniaSelf ReportAssessmentFeasibilityFrailGait speedGrip strengthHospitalMuscle massOlderSarcopenia

Identifiers

PMID30770722
PMCPMC6377779
OpenAlexW2912884204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.