Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35658843›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2022

Validation of the Kihon Checklist and the frailty screening index for frailty defined by the phenotype model in older Japanese adults.

Daiki Watanabe, Tsukasa Yoshida, Yuya Watanabe, Yosuke Yamada, Motohiko Miyachi, Misaka Kimura

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Daiki WatanabeFaculty of Sport Sciences, Waseda University, 2-579-15 Mikajima, Tokorozawa-city, Saitama, 359-1192, Japan. daikiwatanabe0319@gmail.com.
Tsukasa YoshidaNational Institute of Health and Nutrition, National Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition, 1-23-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8636, Japan.
Yuya WatanabeNational Institute of Health and Nutrition, National Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition, 1-23-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8636, Japan.
Yosuke YamadaNational Institute of Health and Nutrition, National Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition, 1-23-1 Toyama, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8636, Japan.
Motohiko MiyachiFaculty of Sport Sciences, Waseda University, 2-579-15 Mikajima, Tokorozawa-city, Saitama, 359-1192, Japan.
Misaka KimuraInstitute of Interdisciplinary Research, Institute for Active Health, Kyoto University of Advanced Science, 1-1 Nanjo Otani, Sogabe-cho, Kameoka-city, Kyoto, 621-8555, Japan.
Waseda University · JPKyoto Prefectural University of Medicine · JPKyoto University of Advanced Science · JPNational Institute of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition · JPNational Institute of Infectious Diseases · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe term "frailty" might appear simple, but the methods used to assess it differ among studies. Consequently, there is inconsistency in the classification of frailty and predictive capacity depending on the frailty assessment method utilised. We aimed to examine the diagnostic accuracy of several screening tools for frailty defined by the phenotype model in older Japanese adults.

methodsThis cross-sectional study included 1,306 older Japanese adults aged ≥ 65 years who underwent physical check-up by cluster random sampling as part of the Kyoto-Kameoka Study in Japan. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of several screening instruments for frailty using the revised Japanese version of the Cardiovascular Health Study criteria as the reference standard. These criteria are based on the Fried phenotype model and include five elements: unintentional weight loss, weakness (grip strength), exhaustion, slowness (normal gait speed), and low physical activity. The Kihon Checklist (KCL), frailty screening index (FSI), and self-reported health were evaluated using mailed surveys. We calculated the non-parametric area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC ROC) for several screening tools against the reference standard.

resultsThe participants' mean (standard deviation) age was 72.8 (5.5) years. The prevalence of frailty based on the Fried phenotype model was 12.2% in women and 10.3% in men. The AUC ROC was 0.861 (95% confidence interval: 0.832-0.889) for KCL, 0.860 (0.831-0.889) for FSI, and 0.668 (0.629-0.707) for self-reported health. The cut-off for identifying frail individuals was ≥ 7 points in the KCL and ≥ 2 points in the FSI.

conclusionsOur results indicated that the two instruments (KCL and FSI) had sufficient diagnostic accuracy for frailty based on the phenotype model for older Japanese adults. This may be useful for the early detection of frailty in high-risk older adults.

Indexed as

FrailtyAgedChecklistCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFrail ElderlyGeriatric AssessmentHumansJapanPhenotypeAccuracyFrailtyPhenotype modelScreening toolValidation

Identifiers

PMID35658843
PMCPMC9164897
OpenAlexW4281663437

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.