↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Effects of multi-domain interventions in (pre)frail elderly on frailty, functional, and cognitive status: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
153 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
437 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Effects of multi-domain interventions in (pre)frail elderly on frailty, functional, and cognitive status: a systematic review
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s130794
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lenore Dedeyne, Mieke Deschodt, Sabine Verschueren, Jos Tournoy, Evelien Gielen

Abstract

Frailty is an aging syndrome caused by exceeding a threshold of decline across multiple organ systems leading to a decreased resistance to stressors. Treatment for frailty focuses on multi-domain interventions to target multiple affected functions in order to decrease the adverse outcomes of frailty. No systematic reviews on the effectiveness of multi-domain interventions exist in a well-defined frail population. This systematic review aimed to determine the effect of multi-domain compared to mono-domain interventions on frailty status and score, cognition, muscle mass, strength and power, functional and social outcomes in (pre)frail elderly (≥65 years). It included interventions targeting two or more domains (physical exercise, nutritional, pharmacological, psychological, or social interventions) in participants defined as (pre)frail by an operationalized frailty definition. The databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until September 14, 2016. Additional articles were searched by citation search, author search, and reference lists of relevant articles. The protocol for this review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016032905). Twelve studies were included, reporting a large diversity of interventions in terms of content, duration, and follow-up period. Overall, multi-domain interventions tended to be more effective than mono-domain interventions on frailty status or score, muscle mass and strength, and physical functioning. Results were inconclusive for cognitive, functional, and social outcomes. Physical exercise seems to play an essential role in the multi-domain intervention, whereby additional interventions can lead to further improvement (eg, nutritional intervention). Evidence of beneficial effects of multi-domain compared to mono-domain interventions is limited but increasing. Additional studies are needed, focusing on a well-defined frail population and with specific attention to the design and the individual contribution of mono-domain interventions. This will contribute to the development of more effective interventions for frail elderly.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 437 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 435 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 83 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 12%
Researcher 36 8%
Student > Bachelor 32 7%
Other 25 6%
Other 82 19%
Unknown 126 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 107 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 75 17%
Sports and Recreations 22 5%
Social Sciences 21 5%
Psychology 11 3%
Other 50 11%
Unknown 151 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 15 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,819,755
of 22,464,753 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#202
of 1,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,216
of 285,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#11
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,464,753 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,814 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 285,201 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 62% of its contemporaries.