Predictive performance of four frailty measures in an older Australian population

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorWidagdo, I.S.
dc.contributor.authorPratt, N.
dc.contributor.authorRussell, M.
dc.contributor.authorRoughead, E.E.
dc.date.issued2015
dc.description.abstractBackground: there are several different frailty measures available for identifying the frail elderly. However, their predictive performance in an Australian population has not been examined. Objective: to examine the predictive performance of four internationally validated frailty measures in an older Australian population. Methods: a retrospective study in the Australian Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ALSA) with 2,087 participants. Frailty was measured at baseline using frailty phenotype (FP), simplified frailty phenotype (SFP), frailty index (FI) and prognostic frailty score (PFS). Odds ratios (OR) were calculated to measure the association between frailty and outcomes at Wave 3 including mortality, hospitalisation, nursing home admission, fall and a combination of all outcomes. Predictive performance was measured by assessing sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) and likelihood ratio (LR). Area under the curve (AUC) of dichotomised and the multilevel or continuous model of the measures was examined. Results: prevalence of frailty varied from 2% up to 49% between the measures. Frailty was significantly associated with an increased risk of any outcome, OR (95% confidence interval) for FP: 1.9 (1.4–2.8), SFP: 3.6 (1.5–8.8), FI: 3.4 (2.7–4.3) and PFS: 2.3 (1.8–2.8). PFS had high sensitivity across all outcomes (sensitivity: 55.2–77.1%). The PPV for any outcome was highest for SFP and FI (70.8 and 69.7%, respectively). Only FI had acceptable accuracy in predicting outcomes, AUC: 0.59–0.70. Conclusions: being identified as frail by any of the four measures was associated with an increased risk of outcomes; however, their predictive accuracy varied.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityImaina S. Widagdo, Nicole Pratt, Mary Russell, Elizabeth E. Roughead
dc.identifier.citationAge and Ageing, 2015; 44(6):967-972
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/ageing/afv144
dc.identifier.issn0002-0729
dc.identifier.issn1468-2834
dc.identifier.orcidPratt, N. [0000-0001-8730-8910]
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/118897
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherOxford University Press
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/LP0669272
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/LP100200413
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DP0879152
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DP130100428
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/179839
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/229922
dc.rights© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved.
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afv144
dc.subjectFrail elderly; sensitivity; specificity; Australia; older people
dc.titlePredictive performance of four frailty measures in an older Australian population
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files

Collections

Public Health publications