Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39702184›Full record

Observational studyBMC geriatrics2024

Predictive value of a self-administered frailty screening questionnaire for the effectiveness of functional rehabilitation evaluated with the locomotor functional independence measure in a geriatric rehabilitation unit: a multicentre cohort study.

Jan Chrusciel, Ramatoulaye Ndoye, Biné-Mariam Ndiongue, Marie-Anne Fournier, Fariba Kabirian, Manon Pondjikli, Valentine Dutheillet-de-Lamothe, Gilles Berrut, Yves Rolland, Stéphane Sanchez

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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.

Jan ChruscielDepartment of Public Health, Hôpitaux Champagne Sud, Troyes, France. jan.chrusciel@hcs-sante.fr.
Ramatoulaye NdoyeResearch Department, Gérontopôle des Pays de la Loire, Nantes, France.
Biné-Mariam NdiongueDepartment of Research and Innovation, Fondation Korian pour le Bien Vieillir, Paris, France.
Marie-Anne FournierDepartment of Research and Innovation, Fondation Korian pour le Bien Vieillir, Paris, France.
Fariba KabirianDepartment of Research and Innovation, Fondation Korian pour le Bien Vieillir, Paris, France.
Manon PondjikliResearch Department, Gérontopôle des Pays de la Loire, Nantes, France.
Valentine Dutheillet-de-LamotheResearch Department, Gérontopôle des Pays de la Loire, Nantes, France.
Gilles BerrutResearch Department, Gérontopôle des Pays de la Loire, Nantes, France.
Yves RollandGérontopôle de Toulouse, CHU de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
Stéphane SanchezDepartment of Public Health, Hôpitaux Champagne Sud, Troyes, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that collect health data directly from the patient, without any intervention from a third party. The aim of rehabilitation units is to restore function. Functional gain can be evaluated with classic scales, such as the locomotor subscale of the Functional Independence Measure. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of a new self-assessment questionnaire pertaining to physical, sensory and cognitive ability (abbreviated SEPCO) for the prediction of functional prognosis in older patients admitted to a rehabilitation unit.

methodsIn this multicentre observational study including patients admitted to 12 rehabilitation centres in France, all included patients completed the SEPCO on admission. Poor response to rehabilitation was defined as relative effectiveness < 40% on the evolution of the locomotor FIM subscale. Components of the questionnaire potentially associated with the outcome of rehabilitation were confirmed for inclusion upon expert review and summed to form an overall score. The final score had five components: the depression score of the HADS, the SOFRESC vision score, the SOFRESC balance score, the stress urinary incontinence subscale of the USP, and the EPICES socio-economic deprivation score. A logistic regression model adjusted for baseline characteristics assessed the performance of the SEPCO score to predict change in functional status, defined by the relative functional gain for the locomotion subscale of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM).

resultsA total of 153 patients (mean age 79.2 ± 8.1 years, 72.5% women) were included. By multivariate analysis, a 5-scale SEPCO score ≥ 1.1 predicted worse functional improvement with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.575, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.081 to 6.133, p = 0.03. Sensitivity for this threshold was 67.4% (95% CI 52.0-80.5%), with a specificity of 58.8% (95% CI 46.2-70.6%). Having a SEPCO ≥ 1.1 almost doubled the probability of poor response to rehabilitation (from 27.3 to 52.5%).

conclusionThe SEPCO score can predict poor functional gain from rehabilitation. Future studies should validate this score on an external cohort. The SEPCO could serve as a complement to the initial clinical evaluation performed by physicians, and assist physicians in setting each patient's rehabilitation goals.

Indexed as

Geriatric AssessmentAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesFemaleFrail ElderlyFrailtyFranceFunctional StatusHumansMalePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPredictive Value of TestsRehabilitation CentersSurveys and QuestionnairesFunctional rehabilitationOlder peoplePatient-reported outcome measures

Identifiers

PMID39702184
PMCPMC11656562

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.