Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32744569›Full record

ArticleThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2020

A Simple Questionnaire as a First-Step Tool to Detect Specific Frailty Profiles: The Lorraine Frailty-Profiling Screening Scale.

M Kotsani, O Aromatario, C Labat, G Vançon, A Fréminet, M Mejri, O Lantieri, B Fantino, C Perret-Guillaume, J Epstein and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

11 authors.

M KotsaniAthanase Benetos, Head of Department of Geriatrics University Hospital of Nancy, 54511 Vandoeuvre les Nancy France; phone number: +33.3.83.15.49.45; fax number +33.3.83.15.76.68; e-mail: a.benetos@chru-nancy.fr.
O Aromatario
C Labat
G Vançon
A Fréminet
M Mejri
O Lantieri
B Fantino
C Perret-Guillaume
J Epstein
A Benetos

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo propose a simple frailty screening tool able to identify frailty profiles.

designCross-sectional observational study.

settingParticipants were recruited in 3 different clinical settings: a primary care outpatient clinic (RURAL population, N=591), a geriatric day clinic (DAY-CLINIC population, N=76) and healthy volunteers (URBAN population, N=147).

participantsA total of 817 older adults (>70 years old) living at home were included.

interventionA 9-item questionnaire (Lorraine Frailty Profiling Screening Scale, LoFProSS), constructed by an experts' working group, was administered to participants by health professionals. MEASUREMENTS: A Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) followed by a hierarchical clustering of the results of the MCA performed in each population was conducted to identify participant profiles based on their answers to LoFProSS. A response pattern algorithm was resultantly identified in the RURAL (main) population and subsequently applied to the URBAN and DAY-CLINIC populations and, in these populations, the two classification methods were compared. Finally, clinically-relevant profiles were generated and compared for their ability to similarly classify subjects.

resultsThe response pattern differed between the 3 sub-populations for all 9 items, revealing significant intergroup differences (1.2±1.4 positive responses for URBAN vs. 2.1±1.3 for RURAL vs. 3.1±2.1 for DAY-CLINIC, all p<0.05). Five clusters were highlighted in the main RURAL population: "non-frail", "hospitalizations", "physical problems", "social isolation" and "behavioral", with similar clusters highlighted in the remaining two populations. Identification of the response pattern algorithm in the RURAL population yielded a second classification approach, with 83% of tested participants classified in the same cluster using the 2 different approaches. Three clinically-relevant profiles ("non-frail" profile, "physical frailty and diseases" profile and "cognitive-psychological frailty" profile) were subsequently generated from the 5 clusters. A similar double classification approach as above was applied to these 3 profiles revealing a very high percentage (95.6%) of similar profile classifications using both methods.

conclusionThe present results demonstrate the ability of LoFProSS to highlight 3 frailty-related profiles, in a consistent manner, among different older populations living at home. Such scale could represent an added value as a simple frailty screening tool for accelerated and better-targeted investigations and interventions.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFrail ElderlyFrailtyGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleMass ScreeningRural PopulationSurveys and QuestionnairesFrailtyprofilescreeningtool

Identifiers

PMID32744569
PMCPMC12876682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.