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 .
Predicting mortality of psychogeriatric patients: a simple prognostic frailty risk score
Background and aims : Frailty and mortality in psychogeriatric patients are hard to predict but important in counselling and therapeutic decision making . We have therefore developed a simple frailty risk score to predict mortality this population . Study design : Prospect i ve observational study including 401 community dwelling psychogeriatric patients ( 249 women ; mean ( SD ) age 78.0 ( 6.5 ) years ) , who had been referred to a multidisciplinary diagnostic observation centre . We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to identify and select baseline characteristics for the development and validation of a risk score for the prediction of 3 year mortality . Results : A total of 116 subjects died during follow-up ( median follow-up duration of 26 months ) . Baseline characteristics associated with mortality were : age ( hazard ratio ( HR ) 1.44 , 95 % confidence interval (CI)1.02 to 2.04 ) , male sex ( HR 2.93 , 95 % CI 1.89 to 4.59 ) , living alone ( HR 1.53 , 95 % CI 0.99 to 2.38 ) , body mass index ( BMI ) < 18.5 kg/m2 ( HR 4.09 , 95 % CI 2.06 to 8.14 ) , cardiovascular disease ( HR 1.42 , 95 % CI 0.94 to 2.15 ) , elderly mobility score < 20 ( HR 1.92 , 95 % CI 1.24 to 2.98 ) , number of medicines ⩾2 ( HR 2.28 , 95 % CI 1.21 to 4.31 ) , and impaired motor ( HR 1.47 , 95 % CI 0.93 to 2.32 ) and process skills ( HR 1.92 , 95 % CI 1.12 to 2.98 ) in activities of daily living . These predictors were translated into an easy-to-use frailty risk score and patients were stratified into very good ( < 45 points ) , good ( 45–50 ) moderate ( 51–55 ) , poor ( 56–61 ) and very poor ( > 61 ) prognosis groups . Three year mortality rates across these groups were 8.0 % , 15.9 % , 25.9 % , 41.5 % , and 68.8 % , respectively ( p<0.001 ) . The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ( AUC ) of the risk score was 0.78 ( 95 % CI 0.73 to 0.82 ) , indicating good discriminative performance . Conclusions : We developed and vali date d a risk score for the prediction of 3 year mortality . This risk score can be used to stratify patients into different risk categories , thereby informing patient counselling and tailored diagnostic and therapeutic decisions in 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 .