For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
4
views
31
references
 Top references
cited by
23
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      2,432
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Natural Regression of Frailty Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Frailty is a dynamic process with potential transitions over time. However, there is limited understanding of the patterns of frailty improvement. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the natural rate of frailty regression among community-dwelling older adults aged at least 60 years.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Frailty index as a predictor of mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

          Gotaro Kojima, Steve Iliffe, Kate Walters (2018)
          two popular operational definitions of frailty, the frailty phenotype and Frailty index (FI), are based on different theories. Although FI was shown to be superior in predicting mortality to the frailty phenotype, no meta-analysis on mortality risk according to FI has been found in the literature.
          Article 0 comments Cited 270 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The frailty phenotype and the frailty index: different instruments for different purposes.

            Matteo Cesari, Giovanni Gambassi, Gabor van Kan … (2014)
            The integration of frailty measures in clinical practice is crucial for the development of interventions against disabling conditions in older persons. The frailty phenotype (proposed and validated by Fried and colleagues in the Cardiovascular Health Study) and the Frailty Index (proposed and validated by Rockwood and colleagues in the Canadian Study of Health and Aging) represent the most known operational definitions of frailty in older persons. Unfortunately, they are often wrongly considered as alternatives and/or substitutables. These two instruments are indeed very different and should rather be considered as complementary. In the present paper, we discuss about the designs and rationals of the two instruments, proposing the correct ways for having them implemented in the clinical setting.
            Article 0 comments Cited 235 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Transitions between frailty states among community-dwelling older people: A systematic review and meta-analysis

              Gotaro Kojima, Yu Taniguchi, Steve Iliffe … (2019)
              Frailty is a well-established risk factor for adverse health outcomes. However, comparatively little is known about the dynamic nature of frailty and the extent to which it can improve. The purposes of this study were to systematically search for studies examining frailty transitions over time among community-dwelling older people, and to synthesise pooled frailty transitions rates. Four electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL) were searched in July 2018. Inclusion criteria were: prospective design, community-dwelling older people with mean age>60, using 5-item frailty phenotype criteria to define three states: robust, prefrail and frail and the numbers of participants with 9 frailty transition patterns based on frailty status at baseline and follow-up. Exclusion criteria were: selected populations, using fewer than 5 frailty phenotype criteria. Two investigators independently screened 504 studies for eligibility and identified 16 studies for this review. Data were extracted by the two investigators independently. Pooled rates of frailty transition patterns were calculated by random-effects meta-analysis. Among 42,775 community-dwelling older people from 16 studies with a mean follow-up of 3.9 years (range: 1-10 years), 13.7% (95%CI = 11.7-15.8%) improved, 29.1% (95%CI = 25.9-32.5%) worsened and 56.5% (95%CI = 54.2-58.8%) maintained the same frailty status. Among those who were robust at baseline, pooled rates of remaining robust or transitioning to prefrail and frail were 54.0% (95%CI = 48.8-59.1%), 40.6% (95%CI = 36.7-44.7%) and 4.5% (95%CI = 3.2-6.1%), respectively. Among those who were prefrail at baseline, corresponding rates to robust, prefrail and frail were 23.1% (95%CI = 18.8-27.6%), 58.2% (95%CI = 55.6-60.7%) and 18.2% (95%CI = 14.9-21.7%), respectively. Among those who were frail at baseline, pooled rates of transitioning to robust, prefrail and remaining frail were 3.3% (95%CI = 1.6-5.5%), 40.3% (95%CI = 34.6-46.1%) and 54.5% (95%CI = 47.6-61.3%), respectively. Stratified and meta-regression analyses showed age, gender and follow-up period were associated with frailty transition patterns. Older people make dynamic changes in their frailty status. Given that while one quarter of prefrail older people improved to robust only 3% of frail older people did, early interventions should be considered.
              Article 0 comments Cited 112 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: The Gerontologist
                Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
                ISSN (Print): 0016-9013
                ISSN (Electronic): 1758-5341
                Publication date Created: May 22 2019
                Publication date (Electronic): May 22 2019
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [2 ]Department of Medical Education, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [3 ]Key State Laboratory of Molecular Developmental Biology, Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chaoyang, China
                [4 ]Institute of Genetics and Developmental Biology, International College, University of Chinese Academy of Science (IC-UCAS), Chaoyang, China
                [5 ]Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [6 ]Centre for Research Excellence in Frailty and Healthy Ageing, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
                Article
                DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnz064
                PubMed ID: 31115434
                SO-VID: 095cb7bc-65ea-4596-9be6-75a0daaa2921
                Copyright © © 2019
                License:

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content2,432

                See all similar

                Cited by23

                See all cited by