Suppr超能文献

在 TILDA 中,虚弱指标的变异性和一致性与跌倒、住院和死亡风险的关系。

Variability and agreement of frailty measures and risk of falls, hospital admissions and mortality in TILDA.

机构信息

Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Big Data Institute, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.

The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing, Medical Gerontology, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2022 Mar 22;12(1):4878. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08959-7.

Abstract

Little is known about the within-person variability of different frailty instruments, their agreement over time, and whether use of repeat assessments could improve the strength of associations with adverse health outcomes. Repeat measurements recorded in 2010-2011 (Wave 1) and 2012 (Wave 2) from The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA) were used to classify individuals with frailty using the frailty phenotype (FP) and frailty index (FI). Within-person variability and agreement of frailty classifications were assessed using ANOVA and kappa (K) statistics, respectively. Associations of each frailty measure (wave 1, wave 2, or mean of both waves) with risk of falls, hospitalisations and all-cause mortality were assessed using logistic regression. Among 7455 individuals (mean age 64.7 [SD 9.9] years), within-person SD was 0.664 units (95% CI 0.654-0.671) for FP and 2 health deficits (SD 0.050 [0.048-0.051]) for FI. Agreement of frailty was modest for both measures, but higher for FI (K 0.600 [0.584-0.615]) than FP (K 0.370 [0.348-0.401]). The odds ratios (ORs) for all-cause mortality were higher for frailty assessed using the mean of two versus single measurements for FI (ORs for mortality 3.5 [2.6-4.9] vs. 2.7 [1.9-3.4], respectively) and FP (ORs for mortality 6.9 [4.6-10.3] vs. 4.0 [2.8-5.635], respectively). Frailty scores based on single measurements had substantial within-person variability, but the agreement in classification of frailty was higher for FI than FP. Frailty assessed using the mean of two or more measurements recorded at separate visits was more strongly associated with adverse health outcomes than those recorded at a single visit.

摘要

关于不同衰弱工具的个体内变异性、它们随时间的一致性,以及重复评估的使用是否可以提高与不良健康结果的关联强度,人们知之甚少。使用爱尔兰老龄化纵向研究(TILDA)在 2010-2011 年(第 1 波)和 2012 年(第 2 波)记录的重复测量值,使用衰弱表型(FP)和衰弱指数(FI)对个体进行衰弱分类。使用方差分析和 Kappa(K)统计量分别评估衰弱分类的个体内变异性和一致性。使用逻辑回归评估每种衰弱测量值(第 1 波、第 2 波或两波平均值)与跌倒、住院和全因死亡率的关联。在 7455 名个体中(平均年龄 64.7 [9.9]岁),FP 的个体内标准差为 0.664 单位(95%CI 0.654-0.671),FI 为 2 个健康缺陷(SD 0.050 [0.048-0.051])。两种测量方法的衰弱一致性都不高,但 FI(K 0.600 [0.584-0.615])高于 FP(K 0.370 [0.348-0.401])。使用 FI 的两次与单次测量的平均值评估全因死亡率的比值比(ORs)更高(死亡率的 ORs 分别为 3.5 [2.6-4.9]和 2.7 [1.9-3.4])和 FP(ORs 分别为 6.9 [4.6-10.3]和 4.0 [2.8-5.635])。基于单次测量的衰弱评分具有较大的个体内变异性,但 FI 的衰弱分类一致性高于 FP。使用两次或更多次在不同访问中记录的测量值的平均值评估的衰弱与不良健康结果的关联比单次访问记录的测量值更紧密。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5b37/8940970/7a1179c7a520/41598_2022_8959_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验