Hu Yi-Ling, Patel Pragnesh, Fritz Heather
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA.
Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2020 Feb 1;6:2333721420904234. doi: 10.1177/2333721420904234. eCollection 2020 Jan-Dec.
We examined the level of agreement between subjective frailty assessments (SFA) and frailty classifications derived from the validated Paulson-Lichtenberg Frailty Index (PLFI). Clinic patients ( = 202) were classified as healthy, prefrail, or frail first by screening using the PLFI and later by two geriatric nurses and two geriatricians according to SFA. Of the 202 participants (mean age = 76.7 ± 8.6), 52 (26%) were prefrail and 57 (28%) were frail based on the PLFI. Geriatrician SFA aligned with the PLFI in 43.0% of prefrail and 65.7% of frail cases. Nurse SFA aligned with the PLFI in 43.9% of prefrail and 17.0% of frail cases. There was slight-to-fair agreement between SFA and PLFI (geriatrician: Cohen's κ = .23; 95% confidence interval (CI) = [.11, .35], < .001; nurse: Cohen's κ = .20; 95% CI = [.08, .33], = .001). Clinician SFA did not align well with PLFI classifications.
我们研究了主观衰弱评估（SFA）与源自经过验证的保尔森 - 利希滕贝格衰弱指数（PLFI）的衰弱分类之间的一致性水平。临床患者（n = 202）首先通过使用PLFI进行筛查，然后由两名老年护士和两名老年科医生根据SFA分为健康、衰弱前期或衰弱。在202名参与者（平均年龄 = 76.7 ± 8.6）中，根据PLFI，52人（26%）为衰弱前期，57人（28%）为衰弱。老年科医生的SFA在43.0%的衰弱前期病例和65.7%的衰弱病例中与PLFI一致。护士的SFA在43.9%的衰弱前期病例和17.0%的衰弱病例中与PLFI一致。SFA和PLFI之间存在轻微到中等程度的一致性（老年科医生：科恩κ系数 = 0.23；95%置信区间（CI）= [0.11, 0.35]，P < 0.001；护士：科恩κ系数 = 0.20；95% CI = [0.08, 0.33]，P = 0.001）。临床医生的SFA与PLFI分类的一致性不佳。
