Smets Ineke H G J, Kempen Gertrudis I J M, Janssen-Heijnen Maryska L G, Deckx Laura, Buntinx Frank J V M, van den Akker Marjan
Department of Clinical Epidemiology, VieCuri Medical Centre, Venlo, The Netherlands.
BMC Geriatr. 2014 Feb 26;14:26. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-14-26.
Frailty in older patients might influence treatment decisions. Frailty can be determined using a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), but this is time-consuming and expensive. Therefore we assessed the diagnostic value of four shorter screening instruments.
We tested the abbreviated CGA (aCGA), the Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13), the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) and the Geriatric 8 (G8). A full CGA including functional status, cognitive status, depression, nutrition and comorbidity was used as reference. A minimum of 85% for both sensitivity and specificity was predefined as acceptable. Data were collected through personal interviews by trained interviewers. We assessed people aged ≥ 70 years: 108 patients with recently diagnosed cancer recruited in hospitals and 290 without cancer recruited by general practitioners in the Netherlands and Belgium.Frailty was defined as having impairment in at least two domains of the full CGA. We used original cut-offs for the screening instruments and calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative diagnostic values and the percentage classified as frail.
Sensitivity of aCGA was 79% and 87% for patients with and without cancer; specificity was 59% and 64%. Sensitivity of VES-13 was 67% and 82% for patients with and without cancer; specificity was 70% and 79%. Sensitivity for GFI was 76% (in both groups) and specificity 73% (in both groups). Sensitivity for G8 was 87% and 75% for patients with and without cancer; specificity was 68% (in both groups).
No screening instrument was acceptable according to our predefined minimum of 85% for both sensitivity and specificity. The diagnostic value of the investigated instruments is rather poor and one could wonder about their additional value to clinical judgment.
老年患者的衰弱可能会影响治疗决策。衰弱可通过综合老年评估(CGA)来确定,但这既耗时又昂贵。因此,我们评估了四种较短筛查工具的诊断价值。
我们测试了简化CGA(aCGA)、脆弱老年人调查-13(VES-13)、格罗宁根衰弱指标(GFI)和老年8项指标(G8)。将包括功能状态、认知状态、抑郁、营养和合并症的完整CGA作为参考。预先定义敏感性和特异性至少85%为可接受。数据由经过培训的访谈员通过个人访谈收集。我们评估了年龄≥70岁的人群:在荷兰和比利时的医院招募的108例近期诊断为癌症的患者以及由全科医生招募的290例无癌症患者。衰弱被定义为在完整CGA的至少两个领域存在损害。我们使用筛查工具的原始临界值,并计算敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性诊断值以及被分类为衰弱的百分比。
aCGA对有癌症和无癌症患者的敏感性分别为79%和87%;特异性分别为59%和64%。VES-13对有癌症和无癌症患者的敏感性分别为67%和82%;特异性分别为70%和79%。GFI的敏感性为76%(两组均如此),特异性为73%(两组均如此)。G8对有癌症和无癌症患者的敏感性分别为87%和75%;特异性为68%(两组均如此)。
根据我们预先定义的敏感性和特异性至少85%的标准,没有一种筛查工具是可接受的。所研究工具的诊断价值相当差,人们可能会质疑它们对临床判断的附加价值。