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 .
Screening for frailty among older patients with cancer that qualify for abdominal surgery.
OBJECTIVE The Geriatric Assessment ( GA ) is an established method for evaluating and optimizing diagnostic and treatment plans . However , it requires experience and is time-consuming . Therefore , a variety of screening methods have been developed . The aim of this study was to compare their accuracy for predicting frailty among older patients with cancer qualified for abdominal surgery based on comparison to the GA . MATERIAL AND METHODS One hundred and thirty five consecutive patients ≥65years of age were prospect ively enrolled . The diagnostic performance of eight screening tests was evaluated : The Vulnerable Elderly Survey ( VES-13 ) , Triage Risk Screening Tool ( TRST ) , Geriatric 8 ( G8 ) , Groningen Frailty Index ( GFI ) , abbreviated Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment ( aCGA ) , Rockwood , Balducci and Fried score . RESULTS The prevalence of frailty as diagnosed by the GA was 73 % . Screening methods identified frail patients in 40 - 75.5 % of cases . The sensitivity and specificity of these tests in predicting frailty were 52%-97 % ( Fried score-G8 ) and 44 - 100 % ( G8-Rockwood score ) , respectively . The positive and negative predictive values were 82 - 100 % ( Balducci-Rockwood ) and 43 - 84 % ( TRST-G8 ) , respectively . Age significantly influenced the predictive value of the screening tests whereas gender and type of cancer did not . CONCLUSION At present , there is no universal screening test that adequately identifies frailty in at risk older patients . The results of this study showed that the aCGA and G8 were the best screens for older patients with cancer that qualified for elective abdominal surgery ; the G8 had the highest sensitivity and negative predictive value and the aCGA was a good overall assessment tool
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 .