Frailty and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Scoping Review of Current Evidence

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 increasingly recognized as an important concept in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). The aim of this scoping review is to summarize the current literature on frailty in IBD. We will discuss the definition of frailty, frailty assessment methods, the prevalence of frailty, risk factors for frailty and the prognostic value of frailty in IBD. A scoping literature search was performed using the PubMed database. Frailty prevalence varied from 6% to 53.9%, depending on the population and frailty assessment method. Frailty was associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including an increased risk for all-cause hospitalization and readmission, mortality in non-surgical setting, IBD-related hospitalization and readmission. Therefore, frailty assessment should become integrated as part of routine clinical care for older patients with IBD.

Related collections

Most cited references 68

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Frailty in Older Adults: Evidence for a Phenotype

L P Fried, C Tangen, J Walston … (2001)

0 comments Cited 2997 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis

Alfonso Cruz-Jentoft, Gulistan Bahat, Jürgen Bauer … (2018)

Abstract Background in 2010, the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) published a sarcopenia definition that aimed to foster advances in identifying and caring for people with sarcopenia. In early 2018, the Working Group met again (EWGSOP2) to update the original definition in order to reflect scientific and clinical evidence that has built over the last decade. This paper presents our updated findings. Objectives to increase consistency of research design, clinical diagnoses and ultimately, care for people with sarcopenia. Recommendations sarcopenia is a muscle disease (muscle failure) rooted in adverse muscle changes that accrue across a lifetime; sarcopenia is common among adults of older age but can also occur earlier in life. In this updated consensus paper on sarcopenia, EWGSOP2: (1) focuses on low muscle strength as a key characteristic of sarcopenia, uses detection of low muscle quantity and quality to confirm the sarcopenia diagnosis, and identifies poor physical performance as indicative of severe sarcopenia; (2) updates the clinical algorithm that can be used for sarcopenia case-finding, diagnosis and confirmation, and severity determination and (3) provides clear cut-off points for measurements of variables that identify and characterise sarcopenia. Conclusions EWGSOP2's updated recommendations aim to increase awareness of sarcopenia and its risk. With these new recommendations, EWGSOP2 calls for healthcare professionals who treat patients at risk for sarcopenia to take actions that will promote early detection and treatment. We also encourage more research in the field of sarcopenia in order to prevent or delay adverse health outcomes that incur a heavy burden for patients and healthcare systems.

0 comments Cited 2909 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

Zachary Munn, Micah D J Peters, Cindy Stern … (2018)

Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.