Search

Background: Rapid frailty screening remains problematic in primary care. The diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of several screening instruments has not been sufficiently established. We evaluated the DTA of several screening instruments against two reference standards: Fried's Frailty Phenotype [FP] and the Adelaide Frailty Index [AFI]), a self-reported questionnaire., Methods: DTA study within three general practices in South Australia. We randomly recruited 243 general practice patients aged 75+ years. Eligible participants were 75+ years, proficient in English and community-dwelling. We excluded those who were receiving palliative care, hospitalized or living in a residential care facility.We calculated sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, Youden Index and area under the curve (AUC) for: Edmonton Frail Scale [EFS], FRAIL Scale Questionnaire [FQ], Gait Speed Test [GST], Groningen Frailty Indicator [GFI], Kihon Checklist [KC], Polypharmacy [POLY], PRISMA-7 [P7], Reported Edmonton Frail Scale [REFS], Self-Rated Health [SRH] and Timed Up and Go [TUG]) against FP [3+ criteria] and AFI [>0.21]., Results: We obtained valid data for 228 participants, with missing scores for index tests multiply imputed. Frailty prevalence was 17.5% frail, 56.6% prefrail [FP], and 48.7% frail, 29.0% prefrail [AFI]. Of the index tests KC (Se: 85.0% [70.2-94.3]; Sp: 73.4% [66.5-79.6]) and REFS (Se: 87.5% [73.2-95.8]; Sp: 75.5% [68.8-81.5]), both against FP, showed sufficient diagnostic accuracy according to our prespecified criteria., Conclusions: Two screening instruments-the KC and REFS, show the most promise for wider implementation within general practice, enabling a personalized approach to care for older people with frailty., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Against a backdrop of aging populations worldwide, it has become increasingly important to identify frailty screening instruments suitable for community settings. Self-reported and/or administered instruments might offer significant simplicity and efficiency advantages over clinician-administered instruments, but their comparative diagnostic test accuracy has yet to be systematically examined. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of self-reported and/or self-administered frailty screening instruments against two widely accepted frailty reference standards (the frailty phenotype and the Frailty Index) within community-dwelling older adult populations. We carried out a systematic search of the Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, PEDro, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations, Open Grey and GreyLit databases up to April 2017 (with an updated search carried out over May-July 2018) to identify studies reporting comparison of self-reported and/or self-administered frailty screening instruments against an appropriate reference standard, with a minimum sensitivity threshold of 80% and specificity threshold of 60%. We identified 24 studies that met our selection criteria. Four self-reported screening instruments across three studies met minimum sensitivity and specificity thresholds. However, in most cases, study design considerations limited the reliability and generalizability of the results. Additionally, meta-analysis was not carried out, because no more than three studies were available for any of the unique combinations of index tests and reference standards. Although the present study has shown that a number of self-reported frailty screening instruments reported sensitivity and specificity within a desirable range for community application, additional diagnostic test accuracy studies are required. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; 20: 14-24., (© 2019 Japan Geriatrics Society.)

Review Question/objective: The question of this systematic review is: What is the diagnostic test accuracy of self-reported frailty screening instruments among community-dwelling older people against any of the following reference standard tests: the frailty phenotype, frailty index and comprehensive geriatric assessment?

Introduction: Frailty is one of the most challenging aspects of population ageing due to its association with increased risk of poor health outcomes and quality of life. General practice provides an ideal setting for the prevention and management of frailty via the implementation of preventive measures such as early identification through screening., Methods and Analysis: Our study will evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and diagnostic test accuracy of several screening instruments in diagnosing frailty among community-dwelling Australians aged 75+ years who have recently made an appointment to see their general practitioner (GP). We will recruit 240 participants across 2 general practice sites within South Australia. We will invite eligible patients to participate and consent to the study via mail. Consenting participants will attend a screening appointment to undertake the index tests: 2 self-reported (Reported Edmonton Frail Scale and Kihon Checklist) and 5 (Frail Scale, Groningen Frailty Index, Program on Research for Integrating Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy (PRISMA-7), Edmonton Frail Scale and Gait Speed Test) administered by a practice nurse (a Registered Nurse working in general practice). We will randomise test order to reduce bias. Psychosocial measures will also be collected via questionnaire at the appointment. A blinded researcher will then administer two reference standards (the Frailty Phenotype and Adelaide Frailty Index). We will determine frailty by a cut-point of 3 of 5 criteria for the Phenotype and 9 of 42 items for the AFI. We will determine accuracy by analysis of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios. We will assess feasibility and acceptability by: 1) collecting data about the instruments prior to collection; 2) interviewing screeners after data collection; 3) conducting a pilot survey with a 10% sample of participants., Ethics and Dissemination: The Torrens University Higher Research Ethics Committee has approved this study. We will disseminate findings via publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at relevant conferences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)