↓ Skip to main content

Psychometric properties of multicomponent tools designed to assess frailty in older adults: A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
277 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Psychometric properties of multicomponent tools designed to assess frailty in older adults: A systematic review
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0225-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer L. Sutton, Rebecca L. Gould, Stephanie Daley, Mark C. Coulson, Emma V. Ward, Aine M. Butler, Stephen P. Nunn, Robert J. Howard

Abstract

Frailty is widely recognised as a distinct multifactorial clinical syndrome that implies vulnerability. The links between frailty and adverse outcomes such as death and institutionalisation have been widely evidenced. There is currently no gold standard frailty assessment tool; optimizing the assessment of frailty in older people therefore remains a research priority. The objective of this systematic review is to identify existing multi-component frailty assessment tools that were specifically developed to assess frailty in adults aged ≥60 years old and to systematically and critically evaluate the reliability and validity of these tools. A systematic literature review was conducted using the standardised COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Five thousand sixty-three studies were identified in total: 73 of which were included for review. 38 multi-component frailty assessment tools were identified: Reliability and validity data were available for 21 % (8/38) of tools. Only 5 % (2/38) of the frailty assessment tools had evidence of reliability and validity that was within statistically significant parameters and of fair-excellent methodological quality (the Frailty Index-Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment [FI-CGA] and the Tilburg Frailty Indicator [TFI]). The TFI has the most robust evidence of reliability and validity and has been the most extensively examined in terms of psychometric properties. However, there is insufficient evidence at present to determine the best tool for use in research and clinical practice. Further in-depth evaluation of the psychometric properties of these tools is required before they can fulfil the criteria for a gold standard assessment tool.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 277 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 273 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 64 23%
Researcher 28 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 8%
Student > Bachelor 18 6%
Other 61 22%
Unknown 57 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 57 21%
Psychology 14 5%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 36 13%
Unknown 72 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 January 2018.
All research outputs
#18,529,032
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,653
of 3,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,608
of 297,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#46
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 297,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.