首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Frailty assessment instruments: Systematic characterization of the uses and contexts of highly-cited instruments
【2h】

Frailty assessment instruments: Systematic characterization of the uses and contexts of highly-cited instruments

机译:脆弱性评估工具:高引用工具的用途和背景的系统表征

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The medical syndrome of frailty is widely recognized, yet debate remains over how best to measure it in clinical and research settings. This study reviewed the frailty-related research literature by (a) comprehensively cataloging the wide array of instruments that have been utilized to measure frailty, and (b) systematically categorizing the different purposes and contexts of use for frailty instruments frequently cited in the research literature. We identified 67 frailty instruments total; of these, nine were highly-cited (≥200 citations). We randomly sampled and reviewed 545 English-language articles citing at least one highly-cited instrument. We estimated the total number of uses, and classified use into eight categories: risk assessment for adverse health outcomes (31% of all uses); etiological studies of frailty (22%); methodology studies (14%); biomarker studies (12%); inclusion/exclusion criteria (10%); estimating prevalence as primary goal (5%); clinical decision-making (2%); and interventional targeting (2%). The most common assessment context was observational studies of older community-dwelling adults. Physical Frailty Phenotype was the most used frailty instrument in the research literature, followed by the Deficit Accumulation Index and the Vulnerable Elders Survey. This study provides an empirical evaluation of the current uses of frailty instruments, which may be important to consider when selecting instruments for clinical or research purposes. We recommend careful consideration in the selection of a frailty instrument based on the intended purpose, domains captured, and how the instrument has been used in the past. Continued efforts are needed to study the validity and feasibility of these instruments.
机译:身体虚弱的医学综合症已得到广泛认可,但关于如何在临床和研究环境中对其进行最佳测量的争论仍然存在。这项研究通过(a)全面归类了用于测量脆弱性的各种仪器,以及(b)系统地对研究文献中经常引用的脆弱性用途的不同目的和环境进行分类,从而回顾了与脆弱性相关的研究文献。 。我们确定了总共67项脆弱的工具;其中,有9篇被高引用(≥200被引用)。我们随机引用了至少一种高度引用的工具,对545篇英语文章进行了随机抽样和审查。我们估计了使用的总数,并将使用分为八类:不良健康后果的风险评估(占所有使用的31%);脆弱的病因学研究(22%);方法学研究(14%);生物标志物研究(12%);纳入/排除标准(10%);估计患病率是主要目标(5%);临床决策(2%);和介入式定位(2%)。最常见的评估背景是对社区老年人的观察研究。身体衰弱表型是研究文献中使用最频繁的衰弱工具,其次是赤字积累指数和弱势老年人调查。这项研究提供了对脆弱仪器当前使用情况的经验评估,在为临床或研究目的选择仪器时可能需要考虑这一点。我们建议您在选择脆弱的仪器时,要根据预期的目的,捕获的域以及该仪器过去的使用方式进行仔细考虑。需要继续努力研究这些工具的有效性和可行性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号