A crosswalk of commonly used frailty scales

Author:

Sison Stephanie Denise M.123ORCID,Shi Sandra M.1ORCID,Kim Kyung Moo4,Steinberg Nessa1,Jeong Sohyun1ORCID,McCarthy Ellen P.12ORCID,Kim Dae Hyun12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research Hebrew SeniorLife Boston Massachusetts USA

2. Division of Gerontology, Department of Medicine Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Boston Massachusetts USA

3. Department of Medicine University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School Worcester Massachusetts USA

4. John A. Burns School of Medicine University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu Hawaii USA

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundSeveral validated scales have been developed to measure frailty, yet the direct relationship between these measures and their scores remains unknown. To bridge this gap, we created a crosswalk of the most commonly used frailty scales.MethodsWe used data from 7070 community‐dwelling older adults who participated in National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) Round 5 to construct a crosswalk among frailty scales. We operationalized the Study of Osteoporotic Fracture Index (SOF), FRAIL Scale, Frailty Phenotype, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Vulnerable Elder Survey‐13 (VES‐13), Tilburg Frailty Indictor (TFI), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS), and 40‐item Frailty Index (FI). A crosswalk between FI and the frailty scales was created using the equipercentile linking method, a statistical procedure that produces equivalent scoring between scales according to percentile distributions. To demonstrate its validity, we determined the 4‐year mortality risk across all scales for low‐risk (equivalent to FI <0.20), moderate‐risk (FI 0.20 to <0.40), and high‐risk (FI ≥0.40) categories.ResultsUsing NHATS, the feasibility of calculating frailty scores was at least 90% for all nine scales, with the FI having the highest number of calculable scores. Participants considered frail on FI (cutpoint of 0.25) corresponded to the following scores on each frailty measure: SOF 1.3, FRAIL 1.7, Phenotype 1.7, CFS 5.3, VES‐13 5.5, TFI 4.4, GFI 4.8, and EFS 5.8. Conversely, individuals considered frail according to the cutpoint of each frailty measure corresponded to the following FI scores: 0.37 for SOF, 0.40 for FRAIL, 0.42 for Phenotype, 0.21 for CFS, 0.16 for VES‐13, 0.28 for TFI, 0.21 for GFI, and 0.37 for EFS. Across frailty scales, the 4‐year mortality risks between the same categories were similar in magnitude.ConclusionOur results provide clinicians and researchers with a useful tool to directly compare and interpret frailty scores across scales.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Geriatrics and Gerontology

Cited by 13 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3