↓ Skip to main content

Predictive performance of four frailty screening tools in community-dwelling elderly

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
Predictive performance of four frailty screening tools in community-dwelling elderly
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12877-017-0633-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bienvenu Bongue, Aurélie Buisson, Caroline Dupre, François Beland, Régis Gonthier, Émilie Crawford-Achour

Abstract

This study compares the performance of four frailty screening tools in predicting relevant adverse outcome (disability, institutionalization and mortality) in community-dwelling elderly. Our study involved a secondary analysis of data from the FréLE cohort study. We focused on the following four frailty screening tools: the abbreviated Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (aCGA), the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), the Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13) and the Fried scale. We used the Barberger-Gateau scale to assess disability. For comparison, we determined the capacity of these tools to predict the occurrence of disability, institutionalization or death using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. We also determined the threshold at which an optimal balance between sensitivity and specificity was reached. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to compare the risk of adverse outcome in the frail versus non-frail groups. In total, 1643 participants were included in the mortality analyses; 1224 participants were included in the analyses of the other outcomes (74.5% of the original sample). The mean age was 77.7 years, and 48.1% of the participants were women. The prevalence of frailty in this sample ranged from 15.0% (Fried) to 52.2% (VES-13). According to the Barberger-Gateau scale, 643 (52.5%) participants were fully independent; 392 (32.0%) were mildly disabled; 118 (9.6%) were moderately disabled; and 71 (5.8%) were severely disabled. The tool with the greatest sensitivity for predicting the occurrence of disability, mortality and institutionalization was VES-13, which showed sensitivities of 91.0%, 89.7% and 92.3%, respectively. The values for the area under the curve (AUC) of the four screening tools at the proposed cut-off points ranged from 0.63 to 0.75. The odds (univariate and multivariate analysis) of developing a disability were significantly greater among the elderly identified as being frail by all four tools. The multivariate analyses showed that the VES-13 may predict the occurrence of disability, mortality and institutionalization. However, the AUC analysis showed that even this tool did not have good discriminatory ability. These findings suggest that despite the high number of frailty screening tools described in the literature, there is still a need for a screening tool with high predictive performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 23%
Student > Bachelor 19 15%
Other 9 7%
Researcher 9 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 43 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 20%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 49 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 January 2018.
All research outputs
#4,446,542
of 22,786,087 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,155
of 3,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,527
of 327,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#22
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,786,087 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 327,260 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.