| Title |
Fried frailty phenotype assessment components as applied to geriatric inpatients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s101369 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joanna Bieniek, Krzysztof Wilczyński, Jan Szewieczek |
| Abstract |
Management of geriatric patients would be simplified if a universally accepted definition of frailty for clinical use was defined. Among definitions of frailty, Fried frailty phenotype criteria constitute a common reference frame for many geriatric studies. However, this reference frame has been tested primarily in elderly patients presenting with relatively good health status. The aim of this article was to assess the usefulness and limitations of Fried frailty phenotype criteria in geriatric inpatients, characterized by comorbidity and functional impairments, and to estimate the frailty phenotype prevalence in this group. Five hundred consecutive patients of the university hospital subacute geriatric ward, aged 79.0±8.4 years (67% women and 33% men), participated in this cross-sectional study. Comprehensive geriatric assessment and Fried frailty phenotype component evaluation were performed in all patients. Multimorbidity (6.0±2.8 diseases) characterized our study group, with a wide range of clinical conditions and functional states (Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living 72.2±28.2 and Mini-Mental State Examination 23.6±7.1 scores). All five Fried frailty components were assessed in 65% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] =60.8-69.2) (diagnostic group). One or more components were not feasible to be assessed in 35% of the remaining patients (nondiagnostic group) because of lack of past patient's body mass control and/or cognitive or physical impairment. Patients from the nondiagnostic group, as compared to patients from the diagnostic group, presented with more advanced age, higher prevalence of dementia, lower prevalence of hypertension, lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure, body mass index, Mini-Mental State Examination and Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living. Despite diagnostic limitations, we found ≥3 positive criteria (thus, frailty diagnosis) in 54.2% of the study group (95% CI =49.8-58.6), with prevalence from 31.7% in sexagenarians to 67.6% in nonagenarians. Fried frailty phenotype criteria seem useful for geriatric inpatient assessment, despite diagnostic limitations. High prevalence of frailty among geriatric inpatients suggests that evaluation for frailty should be considered a part of the comprehensive geriatric assessment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 States | 2 | 29% |
| Australia | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 43% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 210 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 36 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 41 | 20% |
| Unknown | 56 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 36 | 17% |
| Psychology | 13 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 25 | 12% |
| Unknown | 65 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 04 January 2022.
All research outputs
#2,003,643
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#217
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,533
of 314,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#4
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 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 314,727 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.