Difference among frailty assessment tools in predicating postoperative prognosis of elderly patients with mild traumatic brain injury.

IF 2.2 4区医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

Clinics Pub Date : 2025-01-25 DOI:10.1016/j.clinsp.2024.100554

Chunhua Ni, Chen Gu, Hua Liu, Feng Cheng, Chao Cheng, Xiaohua Xia

{"title":"Difference among frailty assessment tools in predicating postoperative prognosis of elderly patients with mild traumatic brain injury.","authors":"Chunhua Ni, Chen Gu, Hua Liu, Feng Cheng, Chao Cheng, Xiaohua Xia","doi":"10.1016/j.clinsp.2024.100554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) is quite prevalent in the elderly population, and the authors performed a retrospective analysis regarding the predictive value of frailty assessing tools regarding the prognosis of elderly mTBI patients.Methods: All the patients underwent assessment of frailty upon admission using five tools including Frailty Phenotype (FP), FRAIL Scale (FS), Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The predicting potential of tools was analyzed against the prognosis defined by the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE).Results: The incidence of frailty in elderly patients varies widely among the tools. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that only frail conditions defined by FP (p-value = 0.014) and FS (p-value = 0.004) could be employed for predicting unfavorable prognosis defined by GOSE, while frailty defined by CFS (p-value = 0.683), EFS (p-value = 0.301) and GFI (p-value = 0.925) could not. The ROC further showed that FP (AUC = 73.2 %) and FS (AUC = 76.2 %) had moderate power in predicting unfavorable conditions, while CFS (AUC = 46.1 %), EFS (AUC = 55.6 %), and GFI (AUC = 51.5 %) only had low or even no power.Conclusions: FP and FS could be used to predict the unfavorable prognosis associated with mTBI in the elderly population.","PeriodicalId":10472,"journal":{"name":"Clinics","volume":"80 ","pages":"100554"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinsp.2024.100554","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) is quite prevalent in the elderly population, and the authors performed a retrospective analysis regarding the predictive value of frailty assessing tools regarding the prognosis of elderly mTBI patients.

Methods: All the patients underwent assessment of frailty upon admission using five tools including Frailty Phenotype (FP), FRAIL Scale (FS), Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The predicting potential of tools was analyzed against the prognosis defined by the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE).

Results: The incidence of frailty in elderly patients varies widely among the tools. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that only frail conditions defined by FP (p-value = 0.014) and FS (p-value = 0.004) could be employed for predicting unfavorable prognosis defined by GOSE, while frailty defined by CFS (p-value = 0.683), EFS (p-value = 0.301) and GFI (p-value = 0.925) could not. The ROC further showed that FP (AUC = 73.2 %) and FS (AUC = 76.2 %) had moderate power in predicting unfavorable conditions, while CFS (AUC = 46.1 %), EFS (AUC = 55.6 %), and GFI (AUC = 51.5 %) only had low or even no power.

Conclusions: FP and FS could be used to predict the unfavorable prognosis associated with mTBI in the elderly population.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinics 医学-医学：内科

CiteScore

4.10

自引率

3.70%

发文量

129

审稿时长

52 days

期刊介绍： CLINICS is an electronic journal that publishes peer-reviewed articles in continuous flow, of interest to clinicians and researchers in the medical sciences. CLINICS complies with the policies of funding agencies which request or require deposition of the published articles that they fund into publicly available databases. CLINICS supports the position of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) on trial registration.