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 .
Operationalizing a frailty index from a standardized comprehensive geriatric assessment.
OBJECTIVES To construct and vali date a frailty index ( FI ) that is clinical ly sensible and practical for geriatricians by basing it on a routinely used comprehensive geriatric assessment ( CGA ) instrument . DESIGN Secondary analysis of a 3-month r and omized , controlled trial of a specialized mobile geriatric assessment team . SETTING Rural Nova Scotia . Participants were seen in their homes . PARTICIPANTS Frail older adults , of whom 92 were in the intervention group and 77 in the control group . MEASUREMENTS A st and ard CGA form that accounts for impairment , disability , and comorbidity burden was scored and summed as a frailty index ( FI-CGA ) . The FI-GCA was stratified to describe three levels of frailty . Patients were followed for up to 12 months to determine how well the index predicted adverse outcomes ( institutionalization or mortality , whichever came first ) . RESULTS The three levels of frailty were mild ( FI-CGA 0 - 7 ) , moderate ( FI-CGA 7 - 13 ) , and severe ( FI-CGA>13 ) . Demographic and social traits were similar across groups , but greater frailty was associated with worse function ( r=0.55 ) and mental status ( r=0.33 ) . Those with moderate and severe frailty had a greater risk of adverse outcomes than those with mild frailty ( unadjusted hazard ratio=1.9 and 5.5 , respectively ) . There was no difference between frailty groups in mean 3-month goal -attainment scaling scores . Intrarater reliability was 0.95 . CONCLUSION The FI-CGA is a valid , reliable , and sensible clinical measure of frailty that permits risk stratification of future adverse outcomes
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 .