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 .
Old or frail: what tells us more?
BACKGROUND Selecting elderly persons who need geriatric interventions  and making accurate treatment decisions are recurring challenges in geriatrics . Chronological age , although often used , does not seem to be the best selection criterion . Instead , the concept of frailty , which indicates several concurrent losses in re sources , can be used . METHODS The predictive values of chronological age and frailty were investigated in a large community sample of persons aged 65 years and older , r and omly drawn from the register of six municipalities in the northern regions of the Netherl and s ( 45 % of the original addressees ) . The participants ' generative capacity to sustain well-being ( i.e. , self-management abilities ) was used as the main outcome measure . RESULTS When using chronological age instead of frailty , both too many and too few persons were selected . Furthermore , frailty related more strongly ( with beta values ranging from -.25 to -.39 ) to a decline in the participants ' self-management abilities than did chronological age ( with beta values ranging from -.06 to -.14 ) . Chronological age added very little to the explained variances of all outcomes once frailty was included . CONCLUSIONS Using frailty as the criterion to select older persons at risk for interventions may be better than selecting persons based only on their chronological age
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 .