Apóstolo João, Cooke Richard, Bobrowicz-Campos Elzbieta, Santana Silvina, Marcucci Maura, Cano Antonio, Vollenbroek-Hutten Miriam, Germini Federico, Holland Carol
1Health Sciences Research Unit: Nursing, Nursing School of Coimbra, Portugal Centre for Evidence-Based Practice: a Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence 2Aston Research Centre for Healthy Ageing (ARCHA), Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom 3Department of Economics, Management and Industrial Engineering, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal 4Geriatric Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy 5Department of Clinical Science and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy 6Department of Paediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Universitat de Valência, Valência, Spain 7Roessingh Research and Development, The Netherlands.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2017 Apr;15(4):1154-1208. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-003018.
A scoping search identified systematic reviews on diagnostic accuracy and predictive ability of frailty measures in older adults. In most cases, research was confined to specific assessment measures related to a specific clinical model.
To summarize the best available evidence from systematic reviews in relation to reliability, validity, diagnostic accuracy and predictive ability of frailty measures in older adults.
Older adults aged 60 years or older recruited from community, primary care, long-term residential care and hospitals.
Available frailty measures in older adults.
Cardiovascular Health Study phenotype model, the Canadian Study of Health and Aging cumulative deficit model, Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment or other reference tests.
Frailty defined as an age-related state of decreased physiological reserves characterized by an increased risk of poor clinical outcomes.
Quantitative systematic reviews.
A three-step search strategy was utilized to find systematic reviews, available in English, published between January 2001 and October 2015.
Assessed by two independent reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for systematic reviews and research synthesis.
Two independent reviewers extracted data using the standardized data extraction tool designed for umbrella reviews.
Data were only presented in a narrative form due to the heterogeneity of included reviews.
Five reviews with a total of 227,381 participants were included in this umbrella review. Two reviews focused on reliability, validity and diagnostic accuracy; two examined predictive ability for adverse health outcomes; and one investigated validity, diagnostic accuracy and predictive ability. In total, 26 questionnaires and brief assessments and eight frailty indicators were analyzed, most of which were applied to community-dwelling older people. The Frailty Index was examined in almost all these dimensions, with the exception of reliability, and its diagnostic and predictive characteristics were shown to be satisfactory. Gait speed showed high sensitivity, but only moderate specificity, and excellent predictive ability for future disability in activities of daily living. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator was shown to be a reliable and valid measure for frailty screening, but its diagnostic accuracy was not evaluated. Screening Letter, Timed-up-and-go test and PRISMA 7 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) demonstrated high sensitivity and moderate specificity for identifying frailty. In general, low physical activity, variously measured, was one of the most powerful predictors of future decline in activities of daily living.
Only a few frailty measures seem to be demonstrably valid, reliable and diagnostically accurate, and have good predictive ability. Among them, the Frailty Index and gait speed emerged as the most useful in routine care and community settings. However, none of the included systematic reviews provided responses that met all of our research questions on their own and there is a need for studies that could fill this gap, covering all these issues within the same study. Nevertheless, it was clear that no suitable tool for assessing frailty appropriately in emergency departments was identified.
一项范围界定检索确定了关于老年人衰弱测量的诊断准确性和预测能力的系统评价。在大多数情况下,研究局限于与特定临床模型相关的特定评估措施。
总结系统评价中关于老年人衰弱测量的可靠性、有效性、诊断准确性和预测能力的最佳现有证据。
纳入标准
从社区、初级保健机构、长期居住护理机构和医院招募的60岁及以上老年人。
老年人可用的衰弱测量方法。
心血管健康研究表型模型、加拿大健康与老龄化研究累积缺陷模型、综合老年评估或其他参考测试。
衰弱定义为与年龄相关的生理储备下降状态,其特征是临床不良结局风险增加。
定量系统评价。
采用三步检索策略查找2001年1月至2015年10月期间以英文发表的系统评价。
由两名独立评审员使用乔安娜·布里格斯研究所系统评价和研究综合的关键评价清单进行评估。
两名独立评审员使用为伞状评价设计的标准化数据提取工具提取数据。
由于纳入评价的异质性,数据仅以叙述形式呈现。
本伞状评价纳入了五项评价,共有227,381名参与者。两项评价关注可靠性、有效性和诊断准确性;两项考察了对不良健康结局的预测能力;一项研究了有效性、诊断准确性和预测能力。总共分析了26份问卷和简短评估以及八项衰弱指标,其中大多数应用于社区居住的老年人。除可靠性外,衰弱指数几乎在所有这些维度上都进行了研究,其诊断和预测特征显示令人满意。步速显示出高敏感性,但特异性仅为中等,对未来日常生活活动能力丧失具有出色的预测能力。蒂尔堡衰弱指标被证明是一种可靠且有效的衰弱筛查措施,但未评估其诊断准确性。筛查信、计时起立行走测试和PRISMA 7(系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目)在识别衰弱方面显示出高敏感性和中等特异性。一般来说,以各种方式测量的低身体活动是未来日常生活活动能力下降的最有力预测因素之一。
似乎只有少数衰弱测量方法被证明是有效、可靠且诊断准确的,并且具有良好的预测能力。其中,衰弱指数和步速在常规护理和社区环境中最为有用。然而,纳入的系统评价中没有一项能单独提供满足我们所有研究问题的答案,因此需要开展研究来填补这一空白,在同一研究中涵盖所有这些问题。尽管如此,很明显没有找到适合在急诊科适当评估衰弱的工具。