These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of 6 frailty screening tools in diagnostic properties among Chinese community-dwelling older people.
    Author: Si H, Jin Y, Qiao X, Tian X, Liu X, Wang C.
    Journal: Geriatr Nurs; 2021; 42(1):276-282. PubMed ID: 32948340.
    Abstract:
    We aimed to compare the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of six frailty screening tools against comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in the community. A total of 1177 community-dwelling older people were recruited. Frailty was assessed by purely physical tools including Physical Frailty Phenotype (PFP), FRAIL (fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illness and loss of weight), Study of Osteoporotic Fracture (SOF), and multidimensional tools including Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) and Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Instrument (CFAI). The receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were performed. The GFI, TFI and CFAI [areas under the curve (AUCs): 0.78-0.80] had better diagnostic accuracy than SOF, PFP and FRAIL (AUCs: 0.69-0.72) (χ2: 6.37-26.76, P<.05). The optimal cut-offs for the PFP, FRAIL and SOF were identical to their original prefrail cut-offs. These results implicate that the multidimensional tools are more effective to identify frailty in the whole community setting, while the self-report FRAIL may be used to identify the prefrail and facilitate early interventions particularly in the community setting with adequate healthcare resources.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]