Frailty indices based on routinely collected data: a scoping review.

IF 3.3 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Schenelle Dayna Dlima, Danielle Harris, Abodunrin Quadri Aminu, Alex Hall, Chris Todd, Emma Rlc Vardy
{"title":"Frailty indices based on routinely collected data: a scoping review.","authors":"Schenelle Dayna Dlima, Danielle Harris, Abodunrin Quadri Aminu, Alex Hall, Chris Todd, Emma Rlc Vardy","doi":"10.1016/j.tjfa.2025.100047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A frailty index (FI) is a frailty assessment tool calculated as the proportion of the number of health-related deficits an individual has to the total number of variables in the index. Routinely collected clinical and administrative data can be used as sources of deficits to automatically calculate FIs. This scoping review aimed to evaluate the current research landscape on routine data-based FIs. We searched seven databases to find literature published in 2013-2023. Main inclusion criteria were original research articles on FIs constructed from routine data, with deficits in at least two of the following categories: \"symptoms/signs\", \"laboratory values\", \"diseases\", \"disabilities\", and \"others\". From 7526 publications screened, 218 were included. Studies were primarily from North America (47.7 %), conducted in the community (35.3 %), and used routine data-based FIs for risk stratification (51.4 %). FIs were calculated using various routine data sources; however, most were initially developed and validated using hospital records. We noted geographical differences in study settings and routine data sources. We identified 611 unique deficits comprising these FIs. Most were either \"diseases\" (34.4 %) or \"symptoms/signs\" (32.1 %). Routine data-based FIs are feasible and valid risk stratification tools, but research is confined to high-income countries, their routine adoption is slow, and deficits comprising these FIs emphasise a reactive and overtly medical approach in addressing frailty. Future directions include exploring the feasibility and applicability of using routine databases for frailty assessment in lower- and middle-income countries, and leveraging non-clinical routine data through data linkages to proactively identify and manage frailty.</p>","PeriodicalId":51629,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Frailty & Aging","volume":"14 3","pages":"100047"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Frailty & Aging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjfa.2025.100047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A frailty index (FI) is a frailty assessment tool calculated as the proportion of the number of health-related deficits an individual has to the total number of variables in the index. Routinely collected clinical and administrative data can be used as sources of deficits to automatically calculate FIs. This scoping review aimed to evaluate the current research landscape on routine data-based FIs. We searched seven databases to find literature published in 2013-2023. Main inclusion criteria were original research articles on FIs constructed from routine data, with deficits in at least two of the following categories: "symptoms/signs", "laboratory values", "diseases", "disabilities", and "others". From 7526 publications screened, 218 were included. Studies were primarily from North America (47.7 %), conducted in the community (35.3 %), and used routine data-based FIs for risk stratification (51.4 %). FIs were calculated using various routine data sources; however, most were initially developed and validated using hospital records. We noted geographical differences in study settings and routine data sources. We identified 611 unique deficits comprising these FIs. Most were either "diseases" (34.4 %) or "symptoms/signs" (32.1 %). Routine data-based FIs are feasible and valid risk stratification tools, but research is confined to high-income countries, their routine adoption is slow, and deficits comprising these FIs emphasise a reactive and overtly medical approach in addressing frailty. Future directions include exploring the feasibility and applicability of using routine databases for frailty assessment in lower- and middle-income countries, and leveraging non-clinical routine data through data linkages to proactively identify and manage frailty.

基于常规收集数据的脆弱性指数:范围审查。
虚弱指数(FI)是一种虚弱程度评估工具,计算方法为个人健康缺陷数与指数中变量总数之比。常规收集的临床和管理数据可作为自动计算fi的缺陷来源。本综述旨在评估当前基于常规数据的FIs的研究现状。我们检索了7个数据库,以查找2013-2023年发表的文献。主要纳入标准是根据常规数据构建的关于fi的原创研究文章,至少存在以下两类缺陷:“症状/体征”、“实验室值”、“疾病”、“残疾”和“其他”。从筛选的7526份出版物中选出218份。研究主要来自北美(47.7%),在社区进行(35.3%),并使用基于常规数据的FIs进行风险分层(51.4%)。使用各种常规数据源计算fi;然而,大多数最初都是使用医院记录开发和验证的。我们注意到研究设置和常规数据来源的地理差异。我们确定了包含这些fi的611个独特缺陷。大多数是“疾病”(34.4%)或“症状/体征”(32.1%)。常规的基于数据的金融工具是可行和有效的风险分层工具,但研究仅限于高收入国家,它们的常规采用速度缓慢,而且这些金融工具的缺陷强调了在解决脆弱性问题时采取被动和公开的医疗方法。未来的方向包括探索在中低收入国家使用常规数据库进行脆弱性评估的可行性和适用性,以及通过数据链接利用非临床常规数据来主动识别和管理脆弱性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Frailty & Aging
Journal of Frailty & Aging GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: The Journal of Frailty & Aging is a peer-reviewed international journal aimed at presenting articles that are related to research in the area of aging and age-related (sub)clinical conditions. In particular, the journal publishes high-quality papers describing and discussing social, biological, and clinical features underlying the onset and development of frailty in older persons.          The Journal of Frailty & Aging is composed by five different sections: - Biology of frailty and aging In this section, the journal presents reports from preclinical studies and experiences focused at identifying, describing, and understanding the subclinical pathophysiological mechanisms at the basis of frailty and aging. - Physical frailty and age-related body composition modifications Studies exploring the physical and functional components of frailty are contained in this section. Moreover, since body composition plays a major role in determining physical frailty and, at the same time, represents the most evident feature of the aging process, special attention is given to studies focused on sarcopenia and obesity at older age. - Neurosciences of frailty and aging The section presents results from studies exploring the cognitive and neurological aspects of frailty and age-related conditions. In particular, papers on neurodegenerative conditions of advanced age are welcomed. - Frailty and aging in clinical practice and public health This journal’s section is devoted at presenting studies on clinical issues of frailty and age-related conditions. This multidisciplinary section particularly welcomes reports from clinicians coming from different backgrounds and specialties dealing with the heterogeneous clinical manifestations of advanced age. Moreover, this part of the journal also contains reports on frailty- and age-related social and public health issues. - Clinical trials and therapeutics This final section contains all the manuscripts presenting data on (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) interventions aimed at preventing, delaying, or treating frailty and age-related conditions.The Journal of Frailty & Aging is a quarterly publication of original papers, review articles, case reports, controversies, letters to the Editor, and book reviews. Manuscripts will be evaluated by the editorial staff and, if suitable, by expert reviewers assigned by the editors. The journal particularly welcomes papers by researchers from different backgrounds and specialities who may want to share their views and experiences on the common themes of frailty and aging.The abstracting and indexing of the Journal of Frailty & Aging is covered by MEDLINE (approval by the National Library of Medicine in February 2016).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信