A crosswalk of commonly used frailty scales.
A crosswalk of commonly used frailty scales.
复制标题
常用衰弱量表的人行横道。
DOI：
10.1111/jgs.18453
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
6.3
通讯作者：
Kim,DaeHyun
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sison,StephanieDeniseM;Shi,SandraM;Kim,KyungMoo;Steinberg,Nessa;Jeong,Sohyun;McCarthy,EllenP;Kim,DaeHyun
背景已经开发了几个有效的量表来测量脆弱性，但这些措施和他们的分数之间的直接关系仍然未知。为了弥合这一差距，我们创建了一个人行横道的最常用的frailty scales.MethodsWe使用的数据从7070社区居住的老年人参加了国家健康和老龄化趋势研究（NHATS）第5轮之间的脆弱性规模构建人行横道。我们操作了骨质疏松性骨折指数（SOF）、FRAIL量表、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）。使用等百分位数链接方法创建FI和虚弱量表之间的交叉通道，这是一种根据百分位数分布在量表之间产生等效评分的统计程序。为了证明其有效性，我们确定了4年的死亡率风险在所有规模的低风险（相当于FI <0.20），中度风险（FI 0.20至<0.40），和高风险（FI ≥0.40）category.ResultsUsing NHATS，计算脆弱分数的可行性至少是90%的所有9个规模，与FI具有最高数量的可计算的分数。被认为在FI上虚弱的参与者（临界点为0.25）对应于每个虚弱指标的以下评分：SOF 1.3，FRAIL 1.7，表型1.7，CFS 5.3，VES-13 5.5，TFI 4.4，GFI 4.8和EFS 5.8。相反，根据每个虚弱指标的临界点，被认为虚弱的个体对应于以下FI评分：SOF为0.37，FRAIL为0.40，表型为0.42，CFS为0.21，VES-13为0.16，TFI为0.28，GFI为0.21，EFS为0.37。在脆弱的规模，4年的死亡率风险之间相同的类别是相似的magnesium.ConclusionOur结果为临床医生和研究人员提供了一个有用的工具，直接比较和解释跨尺度的脆弱分数。
BackgroundSeveral validated scales have been developed to measure frailty, yet the direct relationship between these measures and their scores remains unknown. To bridge this gap, we created a crosswalk of the most commonly used frailty scales.MethodsWe used data from 7070 community‐dwelling older adults who participated in National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) Round 5 to construct a crosswalk among frailty scales. We operationalized the Study of Osteoporotic Fracture Index (SOF), FRAIL Scale, Frailty Phenotype, Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Vulnerable Elder Survey‐13 (VES‐13), Tilburg Frailty Indictor (TFI), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS), and 40‐item Frailty Index (FI). A crosswalk between FI and the frailty scales was created using the equipercentile linking method, a statistical procedure that produces equivalent scoring between scales according to percentile distributions. To demonstrate its validity, we determined the 4‐year mortality risk across all scales for low‐risk (equivalent to FI <0.20), moderate‐risk (FI 0.20 to <0.40), and high‐risk (FI ≥0.40) categories.ResultsUsing NHATS, the feasibility of calculating frailty scores was at least 90% for all nine scales, with the FI having the highest number of calculable scores. Participants considered frail on FI (cutpoint of 0.25) corresponded to the following scores on each frailty measure: SOF 1.3, FRAIL 1.7, Phenotype 1.7, CFS 5.3, VES‐13 5.5, TFI 4.4, GFI 4.8, and EFS 5.8. Conversely, individuals considered frail according to the cutpoint of each frailty measure corresponded to the following FI scores: 0.37 for SOF, 0.40 for FRAIL, 0.42 for Phenotype, 0.21 for CFS, 0.16 for VES‐13, 0.28 for TFI, 0.21 for GFI, and 0.37 for EFS. Across frailty scales, the 4‐year mortality risks between the same categories were similar in magnitude.ConclusionOur results provide clinicians and researchers with a useful tool to directly compare and interpret frailty scores across scales.