0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Detection of frailty in older patients using a mobile app: cross-sectional observational study in primary care

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The main instruments used to assess frailty are the Fried frailty phenotype and the Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses, and Loss of Weight (FRAIL) scale. Both instruments contain items that must be obtained in a personal interview and cannot be used with an electronic medical record only.

          Aim

          To develop and internally validate a prediction model, based on a points system and integrated in an application (app) for Android, to predict frailty using only variables taken from a patient’s clinical history.

          Design and setting

          A cross-sectional observational study undertaken across the Valencian Community, Spain.

          Method

          A sample of 621 older patients was analysed from January 2017 to May 2018. The main variable was frailty measured using the FRAIL scale. Candidate predictors were: sex, age, comorbidities, or clinical situations that could affect daily life, polypharmacy, and hospital admission in the last year. A total of 3472 logistic regression models were estimated. The model with the largest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was selected and adapted to the points system. This system was validated by bootstrapping, determining discrimination (AUC), and calibration (smooth calibration).

          Results

          A total of 126 (20.3%) older people were identified as being frail. The points system had an AUC of 0.78 and included as predictors: sex, age, polypharmacy, hospital admission in the last year, and diabetes. Calibration was satisfactory.

          Conclusion

          A points system was developed to predict frailty in older people using parameters that are easy to obtain and recorded in the clinical history. Future research should be carried out to externally validate the constructed model.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Frailty measurement in research and clinical practice: A review.

          One of the leading causes of morbidity and premature mortality in older people is frailty. Frailty occurs when multiple physiological systems decline, to the extent that an individual's cellular repair mechanisms cannot maintain system homeostasis. This review gives an overview of the definitions and measurement of frailty in research and clinical practice, including: Fried's frailty phenotype; Rockwood and Mitnitski's Frailty Index (FI); the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures (SOF) Index; Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS); the Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illness and Loss of weight (FRAIL) Index; Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS); the Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI); Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI); PRISMA-7; Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Sherbrooke Postal Questionnaire (SPQ); the Gérontopôle Frailty Screening Tool (GFST) and the Kihon Checklist (KCL), among others. We summarise the main strengths and limitations of existing frailty measurements, and examine how well these measurements operationalise frailty according to Clegg's guidelines for frailty classification - that is: their accuracy in identifying frailty; their basis on biological causative theory; and their ability to reliably predict patient outcomes and response to potential therapies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Frailty in elderly people: an evolving concept.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Adequate sample size for developing prediction models is not simply related to events per variable

              Objectives The choice of an adequate sample size for a Cox regression analysis is generally based on the rule of thumb derived from simulation studies of a minimum of 10 events per variable (EPV). One simulation study suggested scenarios in which the 10 EPV rule can be relaxed. The effect of a range of binary predictors with varying prevalence, reflecting clinical practice, has not yet been fully investigated. Study Design and Setting We conducted an extended resampling study using a large general-practice data set, comprising over 2 million anonymized patient records, to examine the EPV requirements for prediction models with low-prevalence binary predictors developed using Cox regression. The performance of the models was then evaluated using an independent external validation data set. We investigated both fully specified models and models derived using variable selection. Results Our results indicated that an EPV rule of thumb should be data driven and that EPV ≥ 20 ​ generally eliminates bias in regression coefficients when many low-prevalence predictors are included in a Cox model. Conclusion Higher EPV is needed when low-prevalence predictors are present in a model to eliminate bias in regression coefficients and improve predictive accuracy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                British Journal of General Practice
                Br J Gen Pract
                Royal College of General Practitioners
                0960-1643
                1478-5242
                December 26 2019
                January 2020
                January 2020
                November 04 2019
                : 70
                : 690
                : e29-e35
                Article
                10.3399/bjgp19X706577
                6833916
                31685541
                0f455a3e-3b64-4885-ad72-df7a63a2c342
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article