CTSU, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Big Data Institute, Old Road Campus, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Health Services Research Unit (HSRU), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Syst Rev. 2022 Sep 2;11(1):187. doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-02052-w.
Current guidelines for healthcare of community-dwelling older people advocate screening for frailty to predict adverse health outcomes, but there is no consensus on the optimum instrument to use in such settings. The objective of this systematic review of population studies was to compare the ability of the frailty index (FI) and frailty phenotype (FP) instruments to predict all-cause mortality in older people.
Studies published before 27 July 2022 were identified using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL databases. The eligibility criteria were population-based prospective studies of community-dwelling older adults (aged 65 years or older) and evaluation of both the FI and FP for prediction of all-cause mortality. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network's Methodology checklist was used to assess study quality. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curves (AUC) were compared, and the proportions of included studies that achieved acceptable discriminatory power (AUC>0.7) were calculated for each frailty instrument. The results were stratified by the use of continuous or categorical formats of each instrument. The review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA and SWiM guidelines.
Among 8 studies (range: 909 to 7713 participants), both FI and FP had comparable predictive power for all-cause mortality. The AUC values ranged from 0.66 to 0.84 for FI continuous, 0.60 to 0.80 for FI categorical, 0.63 to 0.80 for FP continuous and 0.57 to 0.79 for FP categorical. The proportion of studies achieving acceptable discriminatory power were 75%, 50%, 63%, and 50%, respectively. The predictive ability of each frailty instrument was unaltered by the number of included items.
Despite differences in their content, both the FI and FP instruments had modest but comparable ability to predict all-cause mortality. The use of continuous rather than categorical formats in either instrument enhanced their ability to predict all-cause mortality.
目前,针对社区居住的老年人的医疗保健指南提倡进行衰弱筛查,以预测不良健康结局,但在这种情况下使用哪种最佳工具尚无共识。本系统评价对人群研究的目的是比较衰弱指数(FI)和衰弱表型(FP)工具预测老年人全因死亡率的能力。
使用 Ovid MEDLINE、Embase、Scopus、Web of Science 和 CINAHL 数据库,于 2022 年 7 月 27 日之前检索发表的研究。纳入标准为基于人群的前瞻性研究,研究对象为社区居住的老年人(年龄≥65 岁),并评估 FI 和 FP 预测全因死亡率的能力。使用苏格兰校际指南网络的方法学清单评估研究质量。比较了受试者工作特征曲线下的面积(AUC),并计算了每个衰弱工具中达到可接受区分度(AUC>0.7)的纳入研究比例。结果按照每种工具使用连续或分类格式进行分层。本研究按照 PRISMA 和 SWiM 指南进行报告。
在 8 项研究中(范围:909 至 7713 名参与者),FI 和 FP 对全因死亡率的预测能力相当。FI 连续的 AUC 值范围为 0.66 至 0.84,FI 分类的 AUC 值范围为 0.60 至 0.80,FP 连续的 AUC 值范围为 0.63 至 0.80,FP 分类的 AUC 值范围为 0.57 至 0.79。达到可接受区分度的研究比例分别为 75%、50%、63%和 50%。每个衰弱工具的预测能力不受纳入项目数量的影响。
尽管两种工具的内容不同,但 FI 和 FP 都具有预测全因死亡率的适度但相当的能力。在这两种工具中使用连续而不是分类格式都提高了其预测全因死亡率的能力。