脆弱性评估在全球范围内的应用——系统回顾。

IF 3.3 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Samantha Gaston, Elle Billman, Lichy Han, David Drover
{"title":"脆弱性评估在全球范围内的应用——系统回顾。","authors":"Samantha Gaston, Elle Billman, Lichy Han, David Drover","doi":"10.1016/j.tjfa.2025.100088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent expert guidelines recommend that frailty assessments (FAs) encompass physical, functional, cognitive, social, and mental health domains. This systematic review examines FAs administered globally between 2015 to 2022 in geriatric participants (65 years and older) to characterize the parameters used to assess frailty.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA guidelines, we screened 3,859 articles and included 202 in the final analysis. FA parameters were coded into 45 health-related categories defined by the authors to evaluate the domains most frequently used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 39 countries, 291 FAs were identified, with an average number of 17.36 parameters per instrument. Of the 4,995 total parameters analyzed, 22.32 % assessed functional health or physical performance. Cognitive, mental, and social health were assessed by only 6.09 %, 6.35 %, and 5.01 % of parameters, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>FAs overwhelmingly measure functional and physical health parameters with limited attention to cognitive, mental, and social domains. This imbalance suggests that instruments may fall short of capturing the multidimensional nature of frailty as recommended by recent guidelines. By cataloging current FAs, their components, and the degree to which they reflect comprehensive frailty definitions, this review highlights the need for further research and refinement of FAs to ensure accurate, holistic assessment across diverse clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":51629,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Frailty & Aging","volume":"14 6","pages":"100088"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Frailty assessment utilization around the globe-a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Samantha Gaston, Elle Billman, Lichy Han, David Drover\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tjfa.2025.100088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent expert guidelines recommend that frailty assessments (FAs) encompass physical, functional, cognitive, social, and mental health domains. This systematic review examines FAs administered globally between 2015 to 2022 in geriatric participants (65 years and older) to characterize the parameters used to assess frailty.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA guidelines, we screened 3,859 articles and included 202 in the final analysis. FA parameters were coded into 45 health-related categories defined by the authors to evaluate the domains most frequently used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 39 countries, 291 FAs were identified, with an average number of 17.36 parameters per instrument. Of the 4,995 total parameters analyzed, 22.32 % assessed functional health or physical performance. Cognitive, mental, and social health were assessed by only 6.09 %, 6.35 %, and 5.01 % of parameters, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>FAs overwhelmingly measure functional and physical health parameters with limited attention to cognitive, mental, and social domains. This imbalance suggests that instruments may fall short of capturing the multidimensional nature of frailty as recommended by recent guidelines. By cataloging current FAs, their components, and the degree to which they reflect comprehensive frailty definitions, this review highlights the need for further research and refinement of FAs to ensure accurate, holistic assessment across diverse clinical settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51629,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Frailty & Aging\",\"volume\":\"14 6\",\"pages\":\"100088\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-02\",\"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.2025.100088\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Frailty & Aging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjfa.2025.100088","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

摘要

背景:最近的专家指南建议虚弱评估(FAs)包括身体、功能、认知、社会和精神健康领域。本系统综述研究了2015年至2022年全球老年参与者(65岁及以上)的FAs,以表征用于评估虚弱的参数。方法:按照PRISMA指南,我们筛选了3859篇文章,其中202篇进入最终分析。FA参数被编码为作者定义的45个与健康相关的类别,以评估最常用的领域。结果:在39个国家中,鉴定了291个FAs,每个仪器平均有17.36个参数。在分析的4995个总参数中,22.32%评估功能健康或身体表现。认知、心理和社会健康分别仅用6.09%、6.35%和5.01%的参数进行评估。结论:FAs绝大多数测量功能和身体健康参数,对认知、心理和社会领域的关注有限。这种不平衡表明,这些手段可能无法像最近的指导方针所建议的那样,捕捉到脆弱性的多层面性质。通过对目前的FAs、它们的组成以及它们反映综合虚弱定义的程度进行编目,本综述强调需要进一步研究和改进FAs,以确保在不同的临床环境中进行准确、全面的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Frailty assessment utilization around the globe-a systematic review.

Background: Recent expert guidelines recommend that frailty assessments (FAs) encompass physical, functional, cognitive, social, and mental health domains. This systematic review examines FAs administered globally between 2015 to 2022 in geriatric participants (65 years and older) to characterize the parameters used to assess frailty.

Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we screened 3,859 articles and included 202 in the final analysis. FA parameters were coded into 45 health-related categories defined by the authors to evaluate the domains most frequently used.

Results: Across 39 countries, 291 FAs were identified, with an average number of 17.36 parameters per instrument. Of the 4,995 total parameters analyzed, 22.32 % assessed functional health or physical performance. Cognitive, mental, and social health were assessed by only 6.09 %, 6.35 %, and 5.01 % of parameters, respectively.

Conclusions: FAs overwhelmingly measure functional and physical health parameters with limited attention to cognitive, mental, and social domains. This imbalance suggests that instruments may fall short of capturing the multidimensional nature of frailty as recommended by recent guidelines. By cataloging current FAs, their components, and the degree to which they reflect comprehensive frailty definitions, this review highlights the need for further research and refinement of FAs to ensure accurate, holistic assessment across diverse clinical settings.

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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信