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 .
Evaluation of a frailty index based on a comprehensive geriatric assessment in a population based study of elderly Canadians
Background and aims : Objectives were to develop a frailty index ( FI ) based on a st and ard comprehensive geriatric assessment ( CGA ) derived from a clinical examination ; to assess the validity of the FI-CGA and to compare its precision with other frailty measures . Methods : Design : Secondary analysis of a prospect i ve cohort study , with five-year follow-up data . Setting : Second phase of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging ( CSHA-2 ) ; clinical examinations were performed in clinics , nursing homes , and patients ’ homes . Participants : People selected ( as either cognitively impaired cases or unimpaired controls ) to receive the CSHA-2 clinical examination ( n=2305 ; women=1431 ) . Measurements : Clinical and performance-based measures and diagnostic data were extracted to correspond to the 10 impairment domains and the single comorbidity domain of a CGA . The proportion of deficits accumulated in each domain was calculated to yield the FI-CGA . The FI-CGA was vali date d and its predictive ability compared with other frailty measures . Results : Within the seven grade s of fitness/frailty identified , subjects with greater frailty were older , less educated , and more likely to be women . The FI-CGA correlated highly with a previously vali date d , empirically-derived frailty index ( r=0.76 ) . Frailty was associated with higher risk of death ( for each increment in frailty , the hazard ratio , adjusted for age , sex and education , was 1.23 ( 95 % CI 1.18–1.29 ) and institutionalization ( HR 1.20 ; 1.10–1.32 ) . Conclusions : In a population survey , the FI-CGA is a valid means of quantifying frailty from routinely collected data
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 .