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 Frailty Instrument for primary care: findings from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE)
Background A frailty paradigm would be useful in primary care to identify older people at risk , but appropriate metrics at that level are lacking . We created and vali date d a simple instrument for frailty screening in Europeans aged ≥50 . Our study is based on the first wave of the Survey of Health , Ageing and Retirement in Europe ( SHARE , http://www.share-project.org ) , a large population -based survey conducted in 2004 - 2005 in twelve European countries . Methods Subjects : SHARE Wave 1 respondents ( 17,304 females and 13,811 males ) . Measures : five SHARE variables approximating Fried 's frailty definition . Analyses ( for each gender ) : 1 ) estimation of a discreet factor ( DFactor ) model based on the frailty variables using LatentGOLD ® . A single DFactor with three ordered levels or latent classes ( i.e. non-frail , pre-frail and frail ) was modelled ; 2 ) the latent classes were characterised against a biopsychosocial range of Wave 1 variables ; 3 ) the prospect i ve mortality risk ( unadjusted and age-adjusted ) for each frailty class was established on those subjects with known mortality status at Wave 2 ( 2007 - 2008 ) ( 11,384 females and 9,163 males ) ; 4 ) two web-based calculators were created for easy retrieval of a subject 's frailty class given any five measurements . Results Females : the DFactor model included 15,578 cases ( st and ard R2 = 0.61 ) . All five frailty indicators discriminated well ( p < 0.001 ) between the three classes : non-frail ( N = 10,420 ; 66.9 % ) , pre-frail ( N = 4,025 ; 25.8 % ) , and frail ( N = 1,133 ; 7.3 % ) . Relative to the non-frail class , the age-adjusted Odds Ratio ( with 95 % Confidence Interval ) for mortality at Wave 2 was 2.1 ( 1.4 - 3.0 ) in the pre-frail and 4.8 ( 3.1 - 7.4 ) in the frail . Males : 12,783 cases ( st and ard R2 = 0.61 , all frailty indicators had p < 0.001 ) : non-frail ( N = 10,517 ; 82.3 % ) , pre-frail ( N = 1,871 ; 14.6 % ) , and frail ( N = 395 ; 3.1 % ) ; age-adjusted OR ( 95 % CI ) for mortality : 3.0 ( 2.3 - 4.0 ) in the pre-frail , 6.9 ( 4.7 - 10.2 ) in the frail . Conclusions The SHARE Frailty Instrument has sufficient construct and predictive validity , and is readily and freely accessible via web calculators . To our knowledge , SHARE-FI represents the first European research effort towards a common frailty language at the community level
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 .