Department of Internal Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Eur J Intern Med. 2012 Mar;23(2):118-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2011.09.003. Epub 2011 Oct 2.
To identify frail elderly individuals, several index or scoring systems have been developed for research purposes. The practical value of these scores for screening and diagnostic use is uncertain.
The available scoring systems were reviewed to determine whether they can be used in daily practice.
Literature study on relevant test instruments developed for the detection of frailty on the basis of theoretical views on the frailty concept. Data on sensitivity and specificity and predictive values were extracted.
Several (n=6) frailty scores were described with respect to their value as a screening or diagnostic test. Outcome of the selected test instruments is presented as a risk of negative health outcome when a test is positive. The reported AUCs of ROCs varied from 0.55 for functional decline in people admitted to an accident and emergency department to 0.87 for prediction of mortality on the basis of a co-morbidity score. As the prevalence of frailty and resulting negative health outcomes in published reports was low (5-41%), presented sensitivity and specificity values lead to low positive predictive values (6-49%) but reasonable negative predictive values (73-96%).
As the number of false positive values of most available tests is substantial, these frailty scores are of limited value for both screening and diagnostic purposes in daily practice. As diagnostic instruments they can best be used to exclude frailty. The false-positive rate of currently available tests is too high to allow major decisions on medical care to be made on the basis of a positive test.
为了识别体弱老年人,已经开发了几种指数或评分系统用于研究目的。这些评分对于筛选和诊断用途的实际价值尚不确定。
综述现有的评分系统,以确定它们是否可用于日常实践。
基于对虚弱概念的理论观点,对用于检测虚弱的相关检测仪器进行文献研究。提取了灵敏度、特异性和预测值的数据。
描述了几种(n=6)虚弱评分,以评估其作为筛选或诊断测试的价值。所选测试仪器的结果表现为阳性测试时出现负面健康结果的风险。报告的 ROC 的 AUC 范围从急诊科就诊人群的功能下降为 0.55 到基于合并症评分预测死亡率为 0.87。由于发表报告中虚弱和由此产生的负面健康结果的患病率较低(5-41%),所呈现的敏感性和特异性值导致阳性预测值较低(6-49%),但阴性预测值合理(73-96%)。
由于大多数现有测试的假阳性值数量相当多,因此这些虚弱评分在日常实践中的筛选和诊断目的上的价值有限。作为诊断工具,它们最适合用于排除虚弱。目前可用测试的假阳性率过高,无法根据阳性测试做出医疗护理的重大决策。