Existing validated tools for assessing intrinsic capacity and its components within a positive ageing framework: a scoping review and structured appraisal by the Multidisciplinary International Positive Ageing Group.

IF 7.4 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Yves Henrotin, Luis Agüera, Giovanni Briganti, Tommy Cederholm, Demirhan Diracoglu, Gianni Franco, Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft, Karolina Piotrowicz, Virginia Boccardi, Sandrine Vandenput, Sofia Duque
{"title":"Existing validated tools for assessing intrinsic capacity and its components within a positive ageing framework: a scoping review and structured appraisal by the Multidisciplinary International Positive Ageing Group.","authors":"Yves Henrotin, Luis Agüera, Giovanni Briganti, Tommy Cederholm, Demirhan Diracoglu, Gianni Franco, Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft, Karolina Piotrowicz, Virginia Boccardi, Sandrine Vandenput, Sofia Duque","doi":"10.1093/ageing/afag274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Preserving intrinsic capacity (IC) is central to healthy ageing. However, no consensus exists regarding validated multidimensional instruments suitable for assessing IC across the adult lifespan. This scoping review identified instruments used to assess IC and to evaluate their scientific validity, clinical relevance and usability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An updated literature search was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines in five databases for studies published between January 2022 and May 2025. This scoping review updates and expands upon a previously published comprehensive review. Nine experts independently evaluated all identified tools using predefined criteria: scientific validity, clinical relevance, usability in clinical practice, usability for self-assessment and suitability for adults aged <60 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 61 studies describing 61 distinct IC assessment instruments were included. All five IC domains were represented, although coverage across domains was uneven. Instruments assessing sensory capacity were scarce and generally received lower ratings than those targeting other domains. Only the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and EUROQOL-5D achieved the maximum expert score. Importantly, very few instruments were considered appropriate for assessing IC in adults younger than 60 years, limiting their potential use for early identification of functional decline and preventive interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current IC assessment instruments show substantial heterogeneity in content, validity and usability, with important gaps in the assessment of sensory capacity and younger adults. The gaps identified in this scoping review suggest that the development and validation of a comprehensive, multidimensional IC assessment tool may be warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":7682,"journal":{"name":"Age and ageing","volume":"55 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13591483/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Age and ageing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afag274","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Preserving intrinsic capacity (IC) is central to healthy ageing. However, no consensus exists regarding validated multidimensional instruments suitable for assessing IC across the adult lifespan. This scoping review identified instruments used to assess IC and to evaluate their scientific validity, clinical relevance and usability.

Methods: An updated literature search was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines in five databases for studies published between January 2022 and May 2025. This scoping review updates and expands upon a previously published comprehensive review. Nine experts independently evaluated all identified tools using predefined criteria: scientific validity, clinical relevance, usability in clinical practice, usability for self-assessment and suitability for adults aged <60 years.

Results: A total of 61 studies describing 61 distinct IC assessment instruments were included. All five IC domains were represented, although coverage across domains was uneven. Instruments assessing sensory capacity were scarce and generally received lower ratings than those targeting other domains. Only the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 and EUROQOL-5D achieved the maximum expert score. Importantly, very few instruments were considered appropriate for assessing IC in adults younger than 60 years, limiting their potential use for early identification of functional decline and preventive interventions.

Conclusions: Current IC assessment instruments show substantial heterogeneity in content, validity and usability, with important gaps in the assessment of sensory capacity and younger adults. The gaps identified in this scoping review suggest that the development and validation of a comprehensive, multidimensional IC assessment tool may be warranted.

在积极老龄化框架内评估内在能力及其组成部分的现有有效工具:多学科国际积极老龄化小组的范围审查和结构化评估。
保持内在能力(IC)是健康老龄化的核心。然而,对于适用于整个成人生命周期评估IC的有效多维工具,目前还没有达成共识。该范围审查确定了用于评估IC并评估其科学有效性、临床相关性和可用性的工具。方法:根据PRISMA-ScR指南,在5个数据库中检索2022年1月至2025年5月间发表的最新文献。该范围审查更新并扩展了先前发布的全面审查。9位专家使用预定义的标准独立评估了所有确定的工具:科学有效性、临床相关性、临床实践中的可用性、自我评估的可用性和成人年龄的适用性。结果:共纳入61项研究,描述了61种不同的IC评估工具。所有五个IC域都有代表,尽管跨域的覆盖不均匀。评估感官能力的仪器很少,通常得到的评级低于针对其他领域的仪器。只有广泛性焦虑障碍-7和EUROQOL-5D达到最高专家评分。重要的是,很少有工具被认为适合评估60岁以下成人的IC,限制了它们在早期识别功能衰退和预防性干预方面的潜在用途。结论:目前的IC评估工具在内容、有效性和可用性上存在很大的异质性,在评估感觉能力和年轻人方面存在重要差距。在这次范围审查中发现的差距表明,可能有必要开发和验证一个全面的、多维的IC评估工具。
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
Age and ageing
Age and ageing 医学-老年医学
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
6.00%
发文量
796
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Age and Ageing is an international journal publishing refereed original articles and commissioned reviews on geriatric medicine and gerontology. Its range includes research on ageing and clinical, epidemiological, and psychological aspects of later life.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书