| Title |
Comparing the predictive accuracy of frailty, comorbidity, and disability for mortality: a 1-year follow-up in patients hospitalized in geriatric wards
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s124342 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin Ritt, Julia Isabel Ritt, Cornel Christian Sieber, Karl-Günter Gaßmann |
| Abstract |
Studies evaluating and comparing the power of frailty, comorbidity, and disability instruments, together and in parallel, for predicting mortality are limited. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the measures of frailty, comorbidity, and disability in predicting 1-year mortality in geriatric inpatients. Prospective cohort study. A total of 307 inpatients aged ≥65 years in geriatric wards of a general hospital participated in the study. The patients were evaluated in relation to different frailty, comorbidity, and disability instruments during their hospital stays. These included three frailty (the seven-category Clinical Frailty Scale [CFS-7], a 41-item frailty index [FI], and the FRAIL scale), two comorbidity (the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics [CIRS-G] and the comorbidity domain of the FI [Comorbidity-D-FI]), and two disability instruments (disability in basic activities of daily living [ADL-Katz] and the instrumental and basic activities of daily living domains of the FI [IADL/ADL-D-FI]). The patients were followed-up over 1 year. Using FI, CIRS-G, Comorbidity-D-FI, and ADL-Katz, this study identified a patient group with a high (≥50%) 1-year mortality rate in all of the patients and the two patient subgroups (ie, patients aged 65-82 years and ≥83 years). The CFS-7, FI, FRAIL scale, CIRS-G, Comorbidity-D-FI, and IADL/ADL-D-FI (analyzed as full scales) revealed useful discriminative accuracy for 1-year mortality (ie, an area under the curve >0.7) in all the patients and the two patient subgroups (all P<0.001). Thereby, CFS-7 (in all patients and the two patient subgroups) and FI (in the subgroup of patients aged ≥83 years) showed greater discriminative accuracy for 1-year mortality compared to other instruments (all P<0.05). All the different instruments emerged as suitable tools for risk stratification in geriatric inpatients. Among them, CFS-7, and in those patients aged ≥83 years, also the FI, might most accurately predict 1-year mortality in the aforementioned group of individuals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 3 | 60% |
| Spain | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 91 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 19% |
| Unknown | 29 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 37 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 19 January 2023.
All research outputs
#4,690,268
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#480
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,278
of 424,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#17
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 424,972 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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 59% of its contemporaries.