Screening for frailty in primary care: a systematic review of the psychometric properties of the frailty index in community-dwelling older people

Drubbel, Irene; Numans, Mattijs E; Kranenburg, Guido; Bleijenberg, Nienke; de Wit, Niek J; Schuurmans, Marieke J

doi:10.1186/1471-2318-14-27

Table 1 General characteristics of the studies included

From: Screening for frailty in primary care: a systematic review of the psychometric properties of the frailty index in community-dwelling older people

Study	Design data set	Total N (% women)	Follow-up (LTFU)	FI deficits			FI scores
		Mean age (yrs ± SD)		Deficit number	Deficit scoring	Deficit weighting	Mean/Median(± SD/IQR)	Range
		Setting		Deficit number	Deficit scoring	Deficit weighting	Mean/Median(± SD/IQR)	Range
Armstrong et al. [21]	Retrospective cohort study	23,952 (69.4%)	1 yr (?)	50	B	No	?	? – 0.66
	Retrospective cohort study	81.7 (± 7.4)
	8 CCACs	Home-care clients
Cigolle et al. [20]	Cross-sectional study	1,657 (55.5%)	N/A	38	?	?	?	?
	Cross-sectional study	?
	HRS	Community-dwelling
Drubbel et al. [22]	Retrospective cohort study	1,679 (59%)	2 yrs (10.5%)	36	B	No	0.08 (0.03-0.14)	0 – 0.42
	Retrospective cohort study	Median 73 (IQR 65–81)
	GPs EMRs	Community-dwelling
Fang et al. [32]	Retrospective cohort study	3,257 (51.1%)	8 yrs (13.8%)	33	B/M	No	0.13 (± ?)	0 – 0.67
	Retrospective cohort study	70.1 (± 9.0)
	BLSA	Community-dwelling
García-González et al. [33]	Retrospective	Total sample: 4,872	1.95 yrs (13.2%)	34	B/M	No	0.16 (± 0.11)	0 – 0.65
	cohort study	Analyzed sample:
	MHAS	4,082 (52.5%)
		73 (range 65–105)
		Community-dwelling
Gu et al. [23]	Retrospective cohort study	13,861 (57.2%)	3 yrs (12.9%)	39	B	Yes	0.26 (± ?)	?
	Retrospective cohort study	? (range 65–109)
	CLHLS	Population-based
Hogan et al. [37]	Retrospective cohort study	1,066 (76.7%)	1 yr (0%)	83^a	B/M	No	?	?
	Retrospective cohort study	84.9 (± 7.3)
	ACCES	Assisted living residents
Kulminski et al. [24]	Retrospective cohort study	4,721 (?%)	4 yrs (0%)	48	B	No	?	0 – 0.70
	Retrospective cohort study	?
	CHS	Population-based
Kulminski et al. [25]	Retrospective cohort study	24,206 (65.9%)	4 yrs (?)	32	B	No	0.25 (± ?)	0 – 0.70
	Retrospective cohort study	78.3 (± ?)
	NLTCS	Population-based
Lucicesare et al. [27]	Prospective cohort study	1,016 (55.4%)	4 yrs (0%)	43	B	No	0.14 (± ?)	0 – 0.70
	Prospective cohort study	74.7 (± 7.1)
	CSBA	Population –based
Lucicesare et al. [28]	Retrospective cohort study	1,318 (63.1%)	5 yrs (?)	38	?	?	?	0 – 0.59
	Retrospective cohort study	76.05 (± ?)
	CSHA	Population-based
Mitnitski et al. [34]	Retrospective cohort study NPHS, CSHA (3), ALSA, SOPSA, NHANES, H-70, NLTCS-I, ICONS, BCS	36,424 (58.5%)	3-12 yrs (?)	10 FI’s: 38-40	B/M	No	?	?
		74 (range: 27 – 105)		10 FI’s: 38-40
		7 community-dwelling and 4 clinical/institutional samples		1 FI: 13
Mitnitski et al. [6]	Retrospective cohort study	2,913 (?%)	5 yrs (?)	92	B	No	?	?
	Retrospective cohort study	82 (± 7.4)
	CSHA	Population-based
Rockwood et al. [28]	Retrospective cohort study	2,305 (?%)	5 yrs (?)	70	B/M	No	?	0 – 0.70
	Retrospective cohort study	?	?
	CSHA	Population-based	?
Searle et al. [9]	Retrospective cohort study	754 (64.6%)	9 yrs (<10%)	40	B/M	No	?	0 – 0.60
	Retrospective cohort study	?
	YPEP	Community-dwelling
Shi et al. [35]	Retrospective cohort study	3,257 ((51.1%)	8 yrs (12.2%)	35	B/M	No	?	? – 0.70
	Retrospective cohort study	70.1 (± 9.0)
	BLSA	Community-dwelling
Song et al. [29]	Retrospective cohort study	2,740 (60.8%)	10 yrs (10.1%)	36	B	No	0.15 (± ?)	0 – 0.70
	Retrospective cohort study	74 (± 6.6)
	NPHS	Population-based
Theou et al. [36]	Retrospective cohort study	2,305 (62.1%)	5 yrs (?)	FI 1: 37^b	B/M	No	FI 2: 0.24 (± 0.15)	0 – 0.68
	Retrospective cohort study	84.6 (± 7.0)		FI 2: 37^c
	CSHA	Community-dwelling
Woo et al. [30]	Prospective cohort study	4,000 (50%)	4 yrs (15.9%)	47	B	No	?	?
	Prospective cohort study	?
	CUHKS	Community-dwelling
Woo et al. [31]	Retrospective cohort study	2,032 (50.8%)	10 yrs	62	B	Yes	0.13 (?)	0 – 0.53
	Retrospective cohort study	?	42.4% (3 yrs)
	HKHS	Population-based	85.3% (10 yrs)

? = no information found/unclear; ^aIn this study, two FIs were assessed: the Armstrong index and the Full Frailty Index. Only the second FI is reported here (both FIs show similar results); ^bExcluding ADLs/comorbidities, ^cIncluding ADLs/comorbidities comprising 37 different deficits to FI 1; B = binary scoring; FI = Frailty Index; IQR = Interquartile range; LTFU = Lost to follow-up; M = multilevel scoring; N/A = not applicable; Population-based = representative sample of community-dwelling and institutionalized older people; SD = standard deviation; Data sources: ACCES = Alberta Continuing Care Epidemiological Studies; ALSA = Australian Longitudinal Study of Ageing; BCS = Breast Cancer Survivor Study; BLSA = Beijing Longitudinal Study of Ageing; CCAC = Community Care Access Centre; CHS = Cardiovasculair Health Study; CLHLS = Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey; CSBA = Conselice Study of Brain Ageing; CSHA: Canadian Study of Health and Ageing; CUHKS = Chinese University of Hong Kong Study; GPs EMR = General Practitioners’ Electronic Medical Record; H-70 = Gothenburg Study; HKHS = Hong Kong Health Survey; HKSPH = Hong Kong School of Public Health study; HRS = Health and Retirement Survey; ICONS = Improving Cardiovascular Outcomes in Nova Scotia; MHAS = Mexican Health and Aging Study; NHANES = National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; NLTCS (−i) = National Long Term Care Survey (−institute); NPHS = National Population Health Survey; SOPSA = Sydney Older Persons Studies on Aging; YPEP = Yale Precipitating Events Project.

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmcgeriatrics@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com

BMC Geriatrics

Contact us