Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31822285›Full record

Trial reportBMC geriatrics2019

Concordances and differences between a unidimensional and multidimensional assessment of frailty: a cross-sectional study.

Michael C J Van der Elst, Birgitte Schoenmakers, Linda P M Op Het Veld, Ellen E De Roeck, Anne Van der Vorst, Gertrudis I J M Kempen, Nico De Witte, Jan De Lepeleire, Jos M G A Schols, D-SCOPE consortium

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors.

Michael C J Van der ElstDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33 bus 7001, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium. michael.vanderelst@kuleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0001-9381-7287
Birgitte SchoenmakersDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33 bus 7001, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Linda P M Op Het VeldDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Ellen E De RoeckDepartment of Clinical and Lifespan Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Anne Van der VorstDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Gertrudis I J M KempenDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Nico De WitteFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Jan De LepeleireDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33 bus 7001, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Jos M G A ScholsDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
D-SCOPE consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany instruments to identify frail older people have been developed. One of the consequences is that the prevalence rates of frailty vary widely dependent on the instrument selected. The aims of this study were 1) to examine the concordances and differences between a unidimensional and multidimensional assessment of frailty, 2) to assess to what extent the characteristics of a 'frail sample' differ depending on the selected frailty measurement because 'being frail' is used in many studies as an inclusion criterion.

methodA cross-sectional study was conducted among 196 community-dwelling older adults (≥60 years), which were selected from the census records. Unidimensional frailty was operationalized according to the Fried Phenotype (FP) and multidimensional frailty was measured with the Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Instrument (CFAI). The concordances and differences were examined by prevalence, correlations, observed agreement and Kappa values. Differences between sample characteristics (e.g., age, physical activity, life satisfaction) were investigated with ANOVA and Kruskall-Wallis test.

resultsThe mean age was 72.74 (SD 8.04) and 48.98% was male. According to the FP 23.59% was not-frail, 56.92% pre-frail and 19.49% frail. According to the CFAI, 44.33% was no-to-low frail, 37.63% was mild frail and 18.04% was high frail. The correlation between FP and the CFAI was r = 0.46 and the observed agreement was 52.85%. The Kappa value was κ = 0.35 (quadratic κ = 0.45). In total, 11.92% of the participants were frail according to both measurements, 7.77% was solely frail according to the FP and 6.21% was solely frail according to the CFAI. The 'frail sample respondents' according to the FP had higher levels of life satisfaction and net income, but performed less physical activities in comparison to high frail people according to the CFAI.

conclusionThe present study shows that the FP and CFAI partly measure the same 'frailty-construct', although differences were found for instance in the prevalence of frailty and the composition of the 'frail participants'. Since 'being frail' is an inclusion criterion in many studies, researchers must be aware that the choice of the frailty measurement has an impact on both the estimates of frailty prevalence and the characteristics of the selected sample.

Indexed as

Frail ElderlyIndependent LivingAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFrailtyGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceFrailtyFrailty measurementsFrailty PhenotypeMultidimensional frailtyOlder adults

Identifiers

PMID31822285
PMCPMC6902576

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.