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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 292 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 | 288 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 64 | 22% |
| Researcher | 32 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 23 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 7% |
| Other | 57 | 20% |
| Unknown | 70 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 86 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 57 | 20% |
| Psychology | 13 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 36 | 12% |
| Unknown | 85 | 29% |
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
#19,968,026
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#2,998
of 3,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,896
of 312,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#46
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,649 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 312,065 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.