随机对照试验中虚弱程度的测量和分析范围界定综述

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Yanhe Sun, Miles D Witham, Andy Clegg, Rod S Taylor, Grace Dibben, David McAllister, Peter Hanlon
{"title":"随机对照试验中虚弱程度的测量和分析范围界定综述","authors":"Yanhe Sun, Miles D Witham, Andy Clegg, Rod S Taylor, Grace Dibben, David McAllister, Peter Hanlon","doi":"10.1093/ageing/afae258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Frailty is of increasing interest in trials, either as a target of intervention, as an outcome or as a potential treatment modifier. However, frailty measurement is often highly variable. This scoping review assessed how frailty is quantified in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in what context and for what purposes. Methods We searched five electronic databases for RCTs in which frailty was measured among trial participants. We extracted data on intervention type, the frailty measure used and the purpose for which frailty was assessed. We then compared these data according to reasons for frailty assessment. Results We identified 415 RCTs assessing frailty across a range of interventions. Frailty was used to define the target population (166 trials), as an outcome (156 trials), as an effect modifier examining interaction of frailty on treatment effect (61 trials), as a purely descriptive characteristic (42 trials) or as a prognostic marker examining the impact of frailty on future health outcome (78 trials). The trials used 28 different measures of frailty (plus 29 additional trial-specific measures). The frailty phenotype model was the most common overall (164 trials), for defining the target population (90/166 trials) and as an outcome (81/156 trials). The cumulative deficit model frailty index was also frequently used (102 trials) and was most common among trials assessing treatment effect modification (21/61 trials). Conclusion Frailty measurement in RCTs is highly variable. Understanding the properties of respective frailty measures and how these relate to frailty as encountered in clinical practice is a priority to ensure that trial findings can inform healthcare delivery for people living with frailty.","PeriodicalId":7682,"journal":{"name":"Age and ageing","volume":"66 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scoping review of the measurement and analysis of frailty in randomised controlled trials\",\"authors\":\"Yanhe Sun, Miles D Witham, Andy Clegg, Rod S Taylor, Grace Dibben, David McAllister, Peter Hanlon\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ageing/afae258\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Frailty is of increasing interest in trials, either as a target of intervention, as an outcome or as a potential treatment modifier. However, frailty measurement is often highly variable. This scoping review assessed how frailty is quantified in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in what context and for what purposes. Methods We searched five electronic databases for RCTs in which frailty was measured among trial participants. We extracted data on intervention type, the frailty measure used and the purpose for which frailty was assessed. We then compared these data according to reasons for frailty assessment. Results We identified 415 RCTs assessing frailty across a range of interventions. Frailty was used to define the target population (166 trials), as an outcome (156 trials), as an effect modifier examining interaction of frailty on treatment effect (61 trials), as a purely descriptive characteristic (42 trials) or as a prognostic marker examining the impact of frailty on future health outcome (78 trials). The trials used 28 different measures of frailty (plus 29 additional trial-specific measures). The frailty phenotype model was the most common overall (164 trials), for defining the target population (90/166 trials) and as an outcome (81/156 trials). The cumulative deficit model frailty index was also frequently used (102 trials) and was most common among trials assessing treatment effect modification (21/61 trials). Conclusion Frailty measurement in RCTs is highly variable. Understanding the properties of respective frailty measures and how these relate to frailty as encountered in clinical practice is a priority to ensure that trial findings can inform healthcare delivery for people living with frailty.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7682,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Age and ageing\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Age and ageing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afae258\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Age and ageing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afae258","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

摘要

背景虚弱作为干预目标、结果或潜在的治疗调节因素,在试验中越来越受到关注。然而,虚弱程度的测量通常变化很大。本范围界定综述评估了在随机对照试验(RCT)中如何量化虚弱程度,在什么情况下量化,目的是什么。方法 我们在五个电子数据库中搜索了对试验参与者进行虚弱程度测量的随机对照试验。我们提取了有关干预类型、所使用的虚弱度测量方法以及评估虚弱度目的的数据。然后,我们根据虚弱程度评估的原因对这些数据进行了比较。结果 我们确定了 415 项 RCT,这些 RCT 对一系列干预措施的虚弱程度进行了评估。虚弱被用来定义目标人群(166 项试验)、作为一种结果(156 项试验)、作为一种效应调节因子来检验虚弱对治疗效果的交互作用(61 项试验)、作为一种纯粹的描述性特征(42 项试验)或作为一种预后标记来检验虚弱对未来健康结果的影响(78 项试验)。这些试验采用了 28 种不同的虚弱测量方法(另外还有 29 种针对特定试验的测量方法)。在界定目标人群(90/166 项试验)和作为结果(81/156 项试验)时,虚弱表型模型是最常见的总体模型(164 项试验)。累积亏损模型虚弱指数也经常被使用(102 项试验),在评估治疗效果改变的试验中最为常见(21/61 项试验)。结论 RCT 中的虚弱度测量结果差异很大。要确保试验结果能为体弱患者的医疗服务提供参考,当务之急是了解各体弱测量指标的特性,以及这些指标与临床实践中遇到的体弱情况之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A scoping review of the measurement and analysis of frailty in randomised controlled trials
Background Frailty is of increasing interest in trials, either as a target of intervention, as an outcome or as a potential treatment modifier. However, frailty measurement is often highly variable. This scoping review assessed how frailty is quantified in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in what context and for what purposes. Methods We searched five electronic databases for RCTs in which frailty was measured among trial participants. We extracted data on intervention type, the frailty measure used and the purpose for which frailty was assessed. We then compared these data according to reasons for frailty assessment. Results We identified 415 RCTs assessing frailty across a range of interventions. Frailty was used to define the target population (166 trials), as an outcome (156 trials), as an effect modifier examining interaction of frailty on treatment effect (61 trials), as a purely descriptive characteristic (42 trials) or as a prognostic marker examining the impact of frailty on future health outcome (78 trials). The trials used 28 different measures of frailty (plus 29 additional trial-specific measures). The frailty phenotype model was the most common overall (164 trials), for defining the target population (90/166 trials) and as an outcome (81/156 trials). The cumulative deficit model frailty index was also frequently used (102 trials) and was most common among trials assessing treatment effect modification (21/61 trials). Conclusion Frailty measurement in RCTs is highly variable. Understanding the properties of respective frailty measures and how these relate to frailty as encountered in clinical practice is a priority to ensure that trial findings can inform healthcare delivery for people living with frailty.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信