Conclusions The TFI has the most robust evidence of reliability and validity and has been the most extensively examined in terms of psychometric properties .
However , there is insufficient evidence at present to determine the best tool for use in research and clinical practice .
Background Frailty is widely recognised as a distinct multifactorial clinical syndrome that implies vulnerability .
The links between frailty and adverse outcomes such as death and institutionalisation have been widely evidence d. There is currently no gold st and ard frailty assessment tool ; optimizing the assessment of frailty in older people therefore remains a research priority .
The objective of this systematic review is to identify existing multi-component frailty assessment tools that were specifically developed to assess frailty in adults aged ≥60 years old and to systematic ally and critically evaluate the reliability and validity of these tools .
A new operational definition of frailty: the Frailty Trait Scale.
OBJECTIVES To provide a new instrument to diagnose frailty , the Frailty Trait Scale ( FTS ) , that allows a more precise assessment and monitoring of individuals . DESIGN Prospect i ve population -based cohort study . SETTING The Toledo Study for Healthy Aging , Spain . PARTICIPANTS A total of 1972 men and women aged 65 years or older . MEASUREMENTS We identified 7 frailty dimensions ( energy balance-nutrition , physical activity , nervous system , vascular system , strength , endurance , and gait speed ) represented by 12 items . Each item was pondered based on the quintiles of its distribution in the study population . Validity was evaluated by testing its association with factors related to frailty and its predictive value for adverse events . This predictive capacity was further compared with the capacity of 2 well-established frailty models ( the frailty phenotype and the Frailty Index ) . RESULTS FTS score was associated with several comorbidities and biomarkers classically associated with frailty . The FTS was associated with the incidence of hospitalization and mortality ( hazard ratio associated with a score in the highest quartile [ versus the first quartile ] = 2.3 , 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] 1.6 - 3.4 , and 2.5 , 95 % CI 1.8 - 3.6 , respectively ) . Compared with Fried et al 's definition , the FTS showed a better predictor for hospitalization in persons younger than 80 ( area under the curve [ AUC ] = 0.65 vs 0.62 , P = .01 ) , and for mortality in the oldest group ( AUC = 0.77 vs 0.72 , P = .02 ) . FTS showed similar predictive value to the Frailty Index . CONCLUSION FTS associates with many of the factors linked to frailty and has a similar predictive capacity to that provided by the classical instruments . Its characteristics offer some advantages over them , with potential utility in research and clinical practice
Conclusions The TFI has the most robust evidence of reliability and validity and has been the most extensively examined in terms of psychometric properties .
However , there is insufficient evidence at present to determine the best tool for use in research and clinical practice .
Background Frailty is widely recognised as a distinct multifactorial clinical syndrome that implies vulnerability .
The links between frailty and adverse outcomes such as death and institutionalisation have been widely evidence d. There is currently no gold st and ard frailty assessment tool ; optimizing the assessment of frailty in older people therefore remains a research priority .
The objective of this systematic review is to identify existing multi-component frailty assessment tools that were specifically developed to assess frailty in adults aged ≥60 years old and to systematic ally and critically evaluate the reliability and validity of these tools .