Braun Tobias, Grüneberg Christian, Thiel Christian
Department für Angewandte Gesundheitswissenschaften, Studienbereich Physiotherapie, Hochschule für Gesundheit, Gesundheitscampus 6-8, 44801, Bochum, Germany.
Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2018 Apr;51(3):282-292. doi: 10.1007/s00391-017-1295-2. Epub 2017 Aug 9.
Routine screening for frailty could be used to timely identify older people with increased vulnerability und corresponding medical needs.
The aim of this study was the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the PRISMA-7 questionnaire, the FRAIL scale and the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) into the German language as well as a preliminary analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of these instruments used to screen for frailty.
A diagnostic cross-sectional study was performed. The instrument translation into German followed a standardized process. Prefinal versions were clinically tested on older adults who gave structured in-depth feedback on the scales in order to compile a final revision of the German language scale versions. For the analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (criterion validity), PRISMA-7, FRAIL scale and GFI were considered the index tests. Two reference tests were applied to assess frailty, either based on Fried's model of a Physical Frailty Phenotype or on the model of deficit accumulation, expressed in a Frailty Index.
Prefinal versions of the German translations of each instrument were produced and completed by 52 older participants (mean age: 73 ± 6 years). Some minor issues concerning comprehensibility and semantics of the scales were identified and resolved. Using the Physical Frailty Phenotype (frailty prevalence: 4%) criteria as a reference standard, the accuracy of the instruments was excellent (area under the curve AUC >0.90). Taking the Frailty Index (frailty prevalence: 23%) as the reference standard, the accuracy was good (AUC between 0.73 and 0.88).
German language versions of PRISMA-7, FRAIL scale and GFI have been established and preliminary results indicate sufficient diagnostic test accuracy that needs to be further established.
对衰弱进行常规筛查可用于及时识别易损性增加且有相应医疗需求的老年人。
本研究旨在将PRISMA-7问卷、衰弱量表和格罗宁根衰弱指标（GFI）翻译成德语并进行跨文化调适，并对这些用于筛查衰弱的工具的诊断测试准确性进行初步分析。
进行了一项诊断性横断面研究。将工具翻译成德语遵循标准化流程。预终版在老年人中进行临床测试，这些老年人对量表给出了结构化的深入反馈，以便编制德语量表版本的最终修订版。为了分析诊断测试准确性（标准效度），将PRISMA-7、衰弱量表和GFI视为指标测试。应用两种参考测试来评估衰弱，一种基于弗里德的身体衰弱表型模型，另一种基于以衰弱指数表示的缺陷积累模型。
每个工具的德语翻译预终版由52名老年参与者（平均年龄：73±6岁）完成。确定并解决了一些关于量表可理解性和语义的小问题。以身体衰弱表型（衰弱患病率：4%）标准作为参考标准，这些工具的准确性极佳（曲线下面积AUC>0.90）。以衰弱指数（衰弱患病率：23%）作为参考标准，准确性良好（AUC在0.73至0.88之间）。
已建立PRISMA-7、衰弱量表和GFI的德语版本，初步结果表明诊断测试准确性足够，但仍需进一步确定。
