Suppr超能文献

基于索赔的衰弱指数及其与常用临床衰弱测量指标的关系。

Claims-Based Frailty Index and Its Relationship With Commonly Used Clinical Frailty Measures.

机构信息

Hinda and Arthur Marcus Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.

出版信息

J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2024 Jul 1;79(7). doi: 10.1093/gerona/glae094.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The relationship of claims-based frailty index (CFI), a validated measure to identify frail individuals using Medicare data, and frailty measures used in clinical practice has not yet been fully explored.

METHODS

We identified community-dwelling participants of the 2015 National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) whose CFI scores could be calculated using linked Medicare claims. We calculated 9 commonly used clinical frailty measures from their NHATS in-person examination: Study of Osteoporotic Fracture Index (SOF), FRAIL Scale, Frailty Phenotype, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Vulnerable Elder Survey-13 (VES-13), Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), and 40-item Frailty Index (FI). Using equipercentile method, CFI scores were linked to clinical frailty measures. C-statistics and test characteristics of CFI to identify frailty as defined by each clinical frailty measure were calculated.

RESULTS

Of the 3 963 older adults, 44.5% were ≥75 years, 59.4% were female, and 82.3% were non-Hispanic White. A CFI of 0.25 was equipercentile to the following clinical frailty measure scores: SOF 1.4, FRAIL 1.8, Phenotype 1.8, CFS 5.4, VES-13 5.7, TFI 4.6, GFI 5.0, EFS 6.0, and FI 0.26. The C-statistics of using CFI to identify frailty as defined by each clinical measure were ≥0.70, except for CFS and VES-13. The optimal CFI cutpoints to identify frailty per clinical frailty measure ranged from 0.212 to 0.242, with sensitivity and specificity of 0.37-0.83 and 0.66-0.84, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the relationship of CFI and commonly used clinical frailty measures can enhance the interpretability and potential utility of CFI.

摘要

背景

使用医疗保险数据识别虚弱个体的经过验证的基于索赔的虚弱指数(CFI)与临床实践中使用的虚弱测量方法之间的关系尚未得到充分探索。

方法

我们确定了 2015 年国家健康老龄化趋势研究(NHATS)中可以使用链接的医疗保险索赔计算 CFI 分数的居住在社区的参与者。我们从他们的 NHATS 面对面检查中计算了 9 种常用的临床虚弱测量方法:骨质疏松症骨折指数(SOF)、虚弱量表(FRAIL Scale)、虚弱表型、临床虚弱量表(CFS)、脆弱老年人调查-13(VES-13)、蒂尔堡虚弱指标(TFI)、格罗宁根虚弱指标(GFI)、埃德蒙顿虚弱量表(EFS)和 40 项虚弱指数(FI)。使用等百分位法,将 CFI 分数与临床虚弱测量方法相关联。计算 CFI 识别每种临床虚弱测量方法定义的虚弱的 C 统计量和测试特征。

结果

在 3963 名老年人中,44.5%的年龄≥75 岁,59.4%为女性,82.3%为非西班牙裔白人。CFI 为 0.25 与以下临床虚弱测量方法的分数相等:SOF 为 1.4,FRAIL 为 1.8,表型为 1.8,CFS 为 5.4,VES-13 为 5.7,TFI 为 4.6,GFI 为 5.0,EFS 为 6.0,FI 为 0.26。使用 CFI 识别每种临床测量方法定义的虚弱的 C 统计量均≥0.70,除了 CFS 和 VES-13。每个临床虚弱测量方法确定虚弱的最佳 CFI 切点范围为 0.212 至 0.242,灵敏度和特异性分别为 0.37-0.83 和 0.66-0.84。

结论

了解 CFI 与常用临床虚弱测量方法之间的关系可以增强 CFI 的可解释性和潜在效用。

相似文献

3
A crosswalk of commonly used frailty scales.常用虚弱量表的交叉路口。
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023 Oct;71(10):3189-3198. doi: 10.1111/jgs.18453. Epub 2023 Jun 8.

引用本文的文献

1

本文引用的文献

1
A crosswalk of commonly used frailty scales.常用虚弱量表的交叉路口。
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023 Oct;71(10):3189-3198. doi: 10.1111/jgs.18453. Epub 2023 Jun 8.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验