Frailty assessment instruments: Systematic characterization of the uses and contexts of highly-cited instruments

Brian J. Buta, Jeremy D Walston, Job G. Godino, Minsun Park, Rita R. Kalyani, Qian Li Xue, Karen J Bandeen Roche, Ravi Varadhan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The medical syndrome of frailty is widely recognized, yet debate remains over how best to measure it in clinical and research settings. This study reviewed the frailty-related research literature by (a) comprehensively cataloging the wide array of instruments that have been utilized to measure frailty, and (b) systematically categorizing the different purposes and contexts of use for frailty instruments frequently cited in the research literature. We identified 67 frailty instruments total; of these, nine were highly-cited (≥200 citations). We randomly sampled and reviewed 545 English-language articles citing at least one highly-cited instrument. We estimated the total number of uses, and classified use into eight categories: risk assessment for adverse health outcomes (31% of all uses); etiological studies of frailty (22%); methodology studies (14%); biomarker studies (12%); inclusion/exclusion criteria (10%); estimating prevalence as primary goal (5%); clinical decision-making (2%); and interventional targeting (2%). The most common assessment context was observational studies of older community-dwelling adults. Physical Frailty Phenotype was the most used frailty instrument in the research literature, followed by the Deficit Accumulation Index and the Vulnerable Elders Survey. This study provides an empirical evaluation of the current uses of frailty instruments, which may be important to consider when selecting instruments for clinical or research purposes. We recommend careful consideration in the selection of a frailty instrument based on the intended purpose, domains captured, and how the instrument has been used in the past. Continued efforts are needed to study the validity and feasibility of these instruments.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)53-61
Number of pages9
JournalAgeing Research Reviews
Volume26
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2016

Fingerprint

Research
Cataloging
Independent Living
Feasibility Studies
Observational Studies
Language
Biomarkers
Phenotype
Health
Risk assessment
Decision making
Surveys and Questionnaires
Clinical Decision-Making

Keywords

  • Frailty assessment
  • Instrument
  • Operational definition
  • Review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Aging
  • Biochemistry
  • Biotechnology
  • Molecular Biology
  • Neurology

Cite this

@article{b6126fad423349e9bedcee4f0613ae74,
title = "Frailty assessment instruments: Systematic characterization of the uses and contexts of highly-cited instruments",
abstract = "The medical syndrome of frailty is widely recognized, yet debate remains over how best to measure it in clinical and research settings. This study reviewed the frailty-related research literature by (a) comprehensively cataloging the wide array of instruments that have been utilized to measure frailty, and (b) systematically categorizing the different purposes and contexts of use for frailty instruments frequently cited in the research literature. We identified 67 frailty instruments total; of these, nine were highly-cited (≥200 citations). We randomly sampled and reviewed 545 English-language articles citing at least one highly-cited instrument. We estimated the total number of uses, and classified use into eight categories: risk assessment for adverse health outcomes (31{\%} of all uses); etiological studies of frailty (22{\%}); methodology studies (14{\%}); biomarker studies (12{\%}); inclusion/exclusion criteria (10{\%}); estimating prevalence as primary goal (5{\%}); clinical decision-making (2{\%}); and interventional targeting (2{\%}). The most common assessment context was observational studies of older community-dwelling adults. Physical Frailty Phenotype was the most used frailty instrument in the research literature, followed by the Deficit Accumulation Index and the Vulnerable Elders Survey. This study provides an empirical evaluation of the current uses of frailty instruments, which may be important to consider when selecting instruments for clinical or research purposes. We recommend careful consideration in the selection of a frailty instrument based on the intended purpose, domains captured, and how the instrument has been used in the past. Continued efforts are needed to study the validity and feasibility of these instruments.",
keywords = "Frailty assessment, Instrument, Operational definition, Review",
author = "Buta, {Brian J.} and Walston, {Jeremy D} and Godino, {Job G.} and Minsun Park and Kalyani, {Rita R.} and Xue, {Qian Li} and {Bandeen Roche}, {Karen J} and Ravi Varadhan",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.arr.2015.12.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "53--61",
journal = "Ageing Research Reviews",
issn = "1568-1637",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Frailty assessment instruments

T2 - Systematic characterization of the uses and contexts of highly-cited instruments

AU - Buta, Brian J.

AU - Walston, Jeremy D

AU - Godino, Job G.

AU - Park, Minsun

AU - Kalyani, Rita R.

AU - Xue, Qian Li

AU - Bandeen Roche, Karen J

AU - Varadhan, Ravi

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - The medical syndrome of frailty is widely recognized, yet debate remains over how best to measure it in clinical and research settings. This study reviewed the frailty-related research literature by (a) comprehensively cataloging the wide array of instruments that have been utilized to measure frailty, and (b) systematically categorizing the different purposes and contexts of use for frailty instruments frequently cited in the research literature. We identified 67 frailty instruments total; of these, nine were highly-cited (≥200 citations). We randomly sampled and reviewed 545 English-language articles citing at least one highly-cited instrument. We estimated the total number of uses, and classified use into eight categories: risk assessment for adverse health outcomes (31% of all uses); etiological studies of frailty (22%); methodology studies (14%); biomarker studies (12%); inclusion/exclusion criteria (10%); estimating prevalence as primary goal (5%); clinical decision-making (2%); and interventional targeting (2%). The most common assessment context was observational studies of older community-dwelling adults. Physical Frailty Phenotype was the most used frailty instrument in the research literature, followed by the Deficit Accumulation Index and the Vulnerable Elders Survey. This study provides an empirical evaluation of the current uses of frailty instruments, which may be important to consider when selecting instruments for clinical or research purposes. We recommend careful consideration in the selection of a frailty instrument based on the intended purpose, domains captured, and how the instrument has been used in the past. Continued efforts are needed to study the validity and feasibility of these instruments.

AB - The medical syndrome of frailty is widely recognized, yet debate remains over how best to measure it in clinical and research settings. This study reviewed the frailty-related research literature by (a) comprehensively cataloging the wide array of instruments that have been utilized to measure frailty, and (b) systematically categorizing the different purposes and contexts of use for frailty instruments frequently cited in the research literature. We identified 67 frailty instruments total; of these, nine were highly-cited (≥200 citations). We randomly sampled and reviewed 545 English-language articles citing at least one highly-cited instrument. We estimated the total number of uses, and classified use into eight categories: risk assessment for adverse health outcomes (31% of all uses); etiological studies of frailty (22%); methodology studies (14%); biomarker studies (12%); inclusion/exclusion criteria (10%); estimating prevalence as primary goal (5%); clinical decision-making (2%); and interventional targeting (2%). The most common assessment context was observational studies of older community-dwelling adults. Physical Frailty Phenotype was the most used frailty instrument in the research literature, followed by the Deficit Accumulation Index and the Vulnerable Elders Survey. This study provides an empirical evaluation of the current uses of frailty instruments, which may be important to consider when selecting instruments for clinical or research purposes. We recommend careful consideration in the selection of a frailty instrument based on the intended purpose, domains captured, and how the instrument has been used in the past. Continued efforts are needed to study the validity and feasibility of these instruments.

KW - Frailty assessment

KW - Instrument

KW - Operational definition

KW - Review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84954284933&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84954284933&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.arr.2015.12.003

DO - 10.1016/j.arr.2015.12.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 26674984

AN - SCOPUS:84954284933

VL - 26

SP - 53

EP - 61

JO - Ageing Research Reviews

JF - Ageing Research Reviews

SN - 1568-1637

ER -