Key result
The Clinical Frailty Scale will be evaluated for diagnostic and predictive accuracy in hospitalised adults aged ≥65 years in this systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.
Why the study?
Frailty in older adults is associated with increased mortality and adverse outcomes, making identification of those at risk central to resource planning and targeted interventions.
Does the Clinical Frailty Scale accurately diagnose frailty and predict adverse outcomes in hospitalized adults ≥65 years compared with the Frailty Index or Frailty Phenotype?
Systematic Review
Does the Clinical Frailty Scale accurately diagnose frailty and predict adverse outcomes in hospitalized adults ≥65 years compared with the Frailty Index or Frailty Phenotype?
This is a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic and predictive accuracy of the Clinical Frailty Scale in hospitalized older adults.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Protocol for CFS accuracy in older inpatients; leaves open diagnostic utility pending pooled sensitivity/specificity estimates.
INTRODUCTION: Frailty is a common condition affecting older adults and is associated with increased mortality and adverse outcomes. Identification of older adults at risk of adverse outcomes is central to subsequent resource planning and targeted interventions. This systematic review and meta-analysis will examine the: (1) diagnostic accuracy of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) in identifying hospitalised adults ≥65 years with frailty and a medical diagnosis compared with the reference standard Frailty Index or Frailty Phenotype and (2) predictive value of the CFS in determining those at increased risk of subsequent adverse outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include cross-sectional, retrospective and prospective cohort studies, and randomised controlled trials that assess either the diagnostic accuracy of the CFS when compared with the reference standard Frailty Index/Frailty Phenotype or the predictive validity of the CFS to predict subsequent adverse outcomes in hospitalised adults over 65 years with medical complaints. Adverse outcomes include falls, functional decline, unplanned Emergency Department attendance, emergency rehospitalisation, nursing home admission or death. A systematic search will be conducted in Embase, AMED, MEDLINE (Ebsco, Ovid, Pubmed), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library. Studies will be limited to those published from 2005 to 30 October 2019. Two independent reviewers will screen all titles and abstracts to identify relevant studies. The methodological quality of studies will be independently assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. A CFS score of >4 will be used to identify frailty. We will construct 2×2 tables and determine true positives, true negatives, false positives and false negatives for each study when compared with the reference standard and for each adverse outcome. A bivariate random effects model will be applied to generate pooled summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. We will disseminate our findings through a peer-reviewed journal.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leahy et al. (2021) conducted a systematic review in Frailty. Clinical Frailty Scale vs. Frailty Index or Frailty Phenotype was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy and predictive value for adverse outcomes (falls, functional decline, unplanned Emergency Department attendance, emergency rehospitalisation, nursing home admission or death). The Clinical Frailty Scale will be evaluated for diagnostic and predictive accuracy in hospitalised adults aged ≥65 years in this systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: