FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2238284507> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2238284507 endingPage "24" @default.
• W2238284507 startingPage "14" @default.
• W2238284507 abstract "Review question/objective The aim of this systematic review is to comprehensively search the available literature and to summarize the best available evidence from systematic reviews in relation to published screening tools to identify pre-frailty and frailty in older adults, that is: (i) to determine their psychometric proprieties; (ii) to assess their capacity to detect pre-frail and frail conditions against established methods; and (iii) to evaluate their predictive ability. More specifically, the review will focus on the following questions: What is the reliability and validity of existing screening tools that assess pre-frailty/frailty in older patients? How sensitive and specific are pre-frailty/frailty assessment tools in identifying patients with poor prognosis? What is the ability of available pre-frailty/frailty assessment tools to predict adverse health outcomes such as functional disability, hospitalization, institutionalization, comorbidities and death? Background Frailty is an age-related state of vulnerability resulting from a balance between the maintenance of health and the deficits threatening it.1,2 This clinical condition compromises the ability to cope with daily or acute stressors and, further, increases the risk of adverse outcomes, predisposing those involved to disability and dependency on others for daily life activities, and leading to hospitalization and institutional placement.3,4 It is also a predictor of higher mortality rates.4-7 In the absence of biological markers, an operational definition of frailty has been proposed.2,8 This definition is based on physical markers, including weakness with low muscle strength (e.g. poor grip strength), overall slowness (particularly of gait), decreased balance and mobility, fatigability or exhaustion, low physical activity and involuntary weight loss. For diagnostic purposes, at least three of these symptoms must be observed.8 The presence of only one or two of them indicates the earlier stage of frailty, namely, pre-frailty. Despite high predictive validity of this operational definition, and despite its common use in clinical settings, many researchers believe it is insufficient, asserting that it should also include cognitive and mental health domains, and possibly also social domains such as living alone.9-12 Other dimensions recognized as important for identifying frailty are the ability to deal with activities of daily living and quality of life, as for individuals with this clinical condition both of these areas tend to be decreased.9,13 This lack of consensus on the definition of frailty (based on physical markers as opposed to a broader multidimensional approach) is also reflected in divergences related to the prevalence data obtained from epidemiological studies. Systematic comparison of these data14 shows that frailty prevalence differs from 4% to 17% in the population aged 65 and over, and in case of pre-frailty, prevalence varies from 19% to 53% of the same age group, with average values of 10.7% and 41.6%, respectively. The divergences between estimates are also conditioned by demographic variables such as age and gender. Namely, for elders aged 80-84 the prevalence of frailty is estimated as 15.7%, and for elders over the age of 84, 26.1%. Additionally, women tend to have higher rates of frailty than men. Although the condition of frailty has been studied for years, there is no consensus on its pathophysiologic mechanism. According to some authors2,8,15, this state of increased vulnerability is due to accumulation of subthreshold decrements in physiologic reserves that affects multiple physiologic systems. Other authors16,17 have described frailty in terms of progressive dysregulation in a number of main physiologic systems and their complex interconnected network, and subsequent depletion of homeostatic reserve and resiliency. Recently, discussion on the psychopathological mechanism of this clinical condition has been enriched by new theoretical proposals associating frailty to reduced capacity to compensate ageing-related molecular and cellular damage.13,18 In all these approaches it is assumed that the development of frailty may be modulated by disease. In other words, it can be precipitated or exacerbated by the occurrence of comorbid pathological conditions.19-21 It is also suggested that increased vulnerability for adverse health outcomes can precede the onset of chronic diseases.19,20 However, according to Bergman et al19, it is probable that in this case, frailty is just a manifestation of subclinical and undiagnosed stages of such diseases. Because of the high prevalence and the severity of adverse outcomes of frailty, its screening should be a priority in appropriate components of primary care networks (including general practice, geriatrics, psychology, etc.), as well as in institutional or community care settings. Early diagnosis of this clinical condition can help improve care for older adults, making possible the minimization of the risk of pre-frail states developing into frail states (primary prevention), and implementation of therapeutic measures in order to attenuate or delay underlying conditions and symptoms, or to ameliorate the impact on independence or healthy and engaged lifestyles (loss of which would in turn have a further impact on frailty development, i.e. secondary prevention).2,4 In more advanced stages, frailty assessment provides valuable data necessary to plan and implement intervention strategies oriented to the preservation of functional status or to control the progression of adverse outcomes, such as recurrent hospitalizations, institutionalization or death (tertiary prevention).2,4 The evidence obtained from the implementation of various types of interventions for frailty indicates that the frailty condition can be managed and reduced.22-25 Screening for frailty can also provide information on populations at high risk of disability and poor prognosis, and help to identify reversible risk factors.2 These data are especially important for determining variables that make specific interventions more beneficial to specific patients. In order to identify individuals at risk of frailty, several assessment tools have been developed. The most widely cited focus on physical markers of frailty2,8 or are based on the accumulation of deficits from physical, cognitive, mental health and functional domains.13,26 However, both types of measures seem to be insufficient. The first one does not cover all dimensions of frailty and consequently does not provide indications useful to treatment choice and care planning, and the last one is time consuming and thus is difficult to integrate into day-to-day health care practice.27 In more recent approaches, the indices created for frailty assessment integrate demographic, medical, social and functional information, and demonstrate their usefulness either for diagnostic purposes or to predict adverse health outcomes.28 According to the literature, there are more than 20 different measures being used for frailty screening. Nonetheless, it is still unknown how their characteristics match different samples within the frail/pre-frail condition and robust populations, and what is the best fit between these measures, purposes (e.g. to predict need for care, mortality or potential response to intervention) and contexts/populations to assess frailty in older age. Also, the reliability and validity of these measures need to be clarified, as well as the comparative sensitivity and specificity in identifying patients at risk of a poor prognosis. A scoping search identified a large number of relevant systematic reviews; however in most cases they are confined to specific assessment measures related to a specific clinical model (phenotype model8, cumulative deficits model13 and predictive model28). For a clear view and objective evaluation of existing tools, this set of evidence needs to be systematized, compared and synthesized. In other words, it is essential to conduct an umbrella review. A preliminary search of the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Prospero, CINAHL and Medline has revealed that there is currently no overview of reviews or umbrella review (neither published nor in progress) on this topic of sufficient reliability, validity and capacity to detect pre-frail and frail conditions, and with predictive accuracy of available screening tools for frailty in older adults29 The main goal of this umbrella review is to consolidate the available evidence regarding screening for pre-frailty and frailty from the published literature. More specifically, reviews will be summarized in order to determine the quality of screening tools in terms of frailty diagnosis and frailty prognosis." @default.
• W2238284507 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2238284507 creator A5014536547 @default.
• W2238284507 creator A5020728699 @default.
• W2238284507 creator A5037513295 @default.
• W2238284507 creator A5056440226 @default.
• W2238284507 creator A5065950742 @default.
• W2238284507 creator A5066123219 @default.
• W2238284507 creator A5070081243 @default.
• W2238284507 creator A5084918409 @default.
• W2238284507 date "2015-12-01" @default.
• W2238284507 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2238284507 title "Predicting risk and outcomes for frail older adults: a protocol for an umbrella review of available frailty screening tools" @default.
• W2238284507 cites W1491512019 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W1969526980 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W1969933630 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W1973178720 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W1975412844 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W1976692588 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W1992692008 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W2012725663 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W2013331409 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W2014303368 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W2014910485 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W2033839954 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W2103142430 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W2108688205 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W2113862965 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W2114656311 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W2116358746 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W2142514031 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W2147551936 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W2154112588 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W2164059021 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W2169499314 @default.
• W2238284507 cites W2172154123 @default.
• W2238284507 doi "https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2468" @default.
• W2238284507 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26767812" @default.
• W2238284507 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2238284507 type Work @default.
• W2238284507 sameAs 2238284507 @default.
• W2238284507 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W2238284507 countsByYear W22382845072016 @default.
• W2238284507 countsByYear W22382845072017 @default.
• W2238284507 countsByYear W22382845072023 @default.
• W2238284507 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2238284507 hasAuthorship W2238284507A5014536547 @default.
• W2238284507 hasAuthorship W2238284507A5020728699 @default.
• W2238284507 hasAuthorship W2238284507A5037513295 @default.
• W2238284507 hasAuthorship W2238284507A5056440226 @default.
• W2238284507 hasAuthorship W2238284507A5065950742 @default.
• W2238284507 hasAuthorship W2238284507A5066123219 @default.
• W2238284507 hasAuthorship W2238284507A5070081243 @default.
• W2238284507 hasAuthorship W2238284507A5084918409 @default.
• W2238284507 hasBestOaLocation W22382845072 @default.
• W2238284507 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2238284507 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2238284507 hasConcept C2780385302 @default.
• W2238284507 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2238284507 hasConcept C74909509 @default.
• W2238284507 hasConceptScore W2238284507C142724271 @default.
• W2238284507 hasConceptScore W2238284507C204787440 @default.
• W2238284507 hasConceptScore W2238284507C2780385302 @default.
• W2238284507 hasConceptScore W2238284507C71924100 @default.
• W2238284507 hasConceptScore W2238284507C74909509 @default.
• W2238284507 hasIssue "12" @default.
• W2238284507 hasLocation W22382845071 @default.
• W2238284507 hasLocation W22382845072 @default.
• W2238284507 hasLocation W22382845073 @default.
• W2238284507 hasOpenAccess W2238284507 @default.
• W2238284507 hasPrimaryLocation W22382845071 @default.
• W2238284507 hasRelatedWork W1506200166 @default.
• W2238284507 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
• W2238284507 hasRelatedWork W2048182022 @default.
• W2238284507 hasRelatedWork W2080531066 @default.
• W2238284507 hasRelatedWork W2604872355 @default.
• W2238284507 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2238284507 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2238284507 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
• W2238284507 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.
• W2238284507 hasRelatedWork W3108674512 @default.
• W2238284507 hasVolume "13" @default.
• W2238284507 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2238284507 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2238284507 magId "2238284507" @default.
• W2238284507 workType "article" @default.