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 .
The SHARE frailty instrument for primary care predicts incident disability in a European population-based sample.
BACKGROUND The adoption of a frailty paradigm in primary care would be helpful to identify adults who need priority access to specialised re sources . The frailty phenotype by Fried et al is a popular operationalisation of frailty , but it is not easily applicable in routine primary care practice . We recently created and vali date d a frailty instrument based on the Survey of Health , Ageing and Retirement in Europe ( SHARE-FI ) , in order to provide primary care practitioners with an easy , reliable and freely accessible tool for the assessment and monitoring of frailty in community dwelling adults over the age of 50 years ( www.biomed central .com/1471 - 2318/10/57 ) . AIM To provide further prospect i ve validation of SHARE-FI , with a focus on disability . METHODS DESIGN longitudinal study ( wave 1 : 2004 - 2006 ; mean follow-up : 2.4 years ) . SETTING European population -based survey ( 12 countries ) . SUBJECTS 17 567 community dwelling participants ( mean age 63.3 years ) , of whom 13 378 ( 76.2 % ) were non-frail , 3438 ( 19.6 % ) pre-frail and 751 ( 4.3 % ) frail . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES number of difficulties with basic ( ADL ) and instrumental ( IADL ) activities of daily living . STATISTICAL ANALYSES repeated measures ANOVA with adjustment for baseline age . RESULTS By wave 2 , 3.6 % of the non-frail , 12.2 % of the pre-frail and 30.4 % of the frail had increased their number of ADL difficulties by at least one . Likewise , 6.6 % of the non-frail , 20.4 % of the prefrail and 36.6 % of the frail had , by wave 2 , increased their number of IADL difficulties by at least one . Table 1 shows the repeated measures ANOVA suggested . CONCLUSION SHARE-FI may contribute to quality in primary care by offering a quick and reliable way to assess and monitor frailty in community dwelling individuals over the age of 50 and prioritize their access to re sources , and it serves as a novel tool for audit and research
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 .