Diagnostic test accuracy of self-reported frailty screening instruments in identifying community-dwelling older people at risk of frailty and pre-frailty: a systematic review protocol

Ambagtsheer, Rachel C.; Thompson, Mark Q.; Archibald, Mandy M.; Casey, Mavourneen; Schultz, Tim

doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2017-003363

Cited by 7 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Self-administered instruments show potential as one means of offering greater efficiency within general practice settings, although their diagnostic accuracy and feasibility have not been well determined to date [46]. Time to complete was not collected for the two selfadministered instruments assessed within this study (KC and REFS).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility and acceptability of commonly used screening instruments to identify frailty among community-dwelling older people: a mixed methods study

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Frailty exposes older people to an elevated risk of a range of negative outcomes. Emerging evidence that frailty can be effectively treated within community settings has stimulated calls for more proactive screening within primary care. Assessing feasibility is a critical preliminary step in assessing the efficacy of interventions such as screening. However, few studies have explored the feasibility and acceptability of administering frailty screening instruments within general practice, and even fewer have incorporated patient perspectives. Our study had three objectives: To 1) assess overall feasibility of the instruments (completion time and rate); 2) assess patient acceptability towards the instruments; and 3) assess the feasibility and acceptability of the instruments to administering nurses. Methods: The feasibility and acceptability of several frailty screening instruments (PRISMA-7, Edmonton Frail Scale, FRAIL Scale Questionnaire, Gait Speed, Groningen Frailty Indicator, Reported Edmonton Frail Scale and Kihon Checklist) was explored within the context of a larger diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) study. Completion time and rate was collected for all participants (N = 243). A sub-sample of patients (n = 30) rated each instrument for ease of completion and provided comment on perceived acceptability. Lastly, five of six administering nurses involved in the DTA study participated in semi-structured face-to-face interviews, rating the instruments against several feasibility and acceptability criteria (time, space, equipment, skill required to implement, acceptability to patients and nurses, ease of scoring) and providing comment on their responses. Results: The PRISMA-7 returned the highest overall feasibility and acceptability, requiring minimal space, equipment, skills and time to implement, and returning the fastest completion rate and highest patient and nurse acceptability rating. All screening instruments were faster to implement than the two reference standards (Fried's Frailty Phenotype and Frailty Index). Self-administered instruments were subject to lower rates of completion than nurse-administered instruments. (Continued on next page)Conclusions: This study has demonstrated that a number of commonly used frailty screening instruments are potentially feasible for implementation within general practice. Ultimately, more research is needed to determine how contextual factors, such as differences in individual patient and clinician preferences, setting and system factors, impact on the feasibility of screening in practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility and acceptability of commonly used screening instruments to identify frailty among community-dwelling older people: a mixed methods study

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Do self-reported frailty to predict survival in adults with bacterial meningitis screening instruments (index test) accurately identify older people (population) at risk of frailty and prefrailty (condition of interest)? 10 Is PET 18F florbetapen (index test) useful in early diagnosing dementia (condition) in patients with mild cognitive impairment (population)? 11…”

Section: Pird-s (Population Index Test Reference Test Diagnosis Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The resources were organised in 7 sections, following the development stages of an SR: 1) Formulating the research question, 2) development of the protocol and review registration, 3) search strategy, 4) risk of bias assessment, 5) statistical synthesis of findings, 6) quality of evidence assessment, and 7) results report and presentation. The resources are presented by type of SR in each section, and an example of their use is included [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] .…”

Section: Data Selection and Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Systematic reviews (SR) can be classified by type depending on the research question they are based on. This work identifies and describes the most relevant methodological resources to conduct high-quality reviews that answer health care questions regarding prevalence, prognosis, diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions. Methods: Methodological resources have been identified from literature searches and consulting guidelines from institutions that develop SRs. The selected resources are organized by type of SR, and stage of development of the review (formulation of the research question, development of the protocol, literature search, risk of bias assessment, synthesis of findings, assessment of the quality of evidence, and report of SR results and conclusions). Results: Although the different types of SRs are developed following the same steps, each SR type requires specific methods, differing in characteristics and complexity. The extent of methodological development varies by type of SR, with more solid guidelines available for diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions SRs. This methodological toolkit describes the most up-to-date risk of bias instruments: Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic SRs, Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic accuracy SRs, Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2) and Risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions studies tool (ROBINS-I) for effects of interventions SRs, as well as the latest developments on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Conclusions: This structured compilation of the best methodological resources for each type of SR may prove to be a very useful tool for those researchers that wish to develop SRs or conduct methodological research works on SRs

show abstract

“…Case-control designs are subject to risk of bias and their inclusion in diagnostic SRs is not recommended 25 . For instance, Ambagtsheer et al (2017) include in their SR cross-sectional studies where one or more self-reported frailty screening scales have been compared with one of three reference standards: frailty phenotype, frailty index or comprehensive geriatric assessment 10 .…”

Section: Diagnostic Accuracy Review Diagnosticmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, the protocol of the SR by Ambagtsheer et al (2017) expects to estimate an average sensitivity and specificity for the frailty scales, when the included studies have applied the same explicit cut-off points to the considered scales. However, given that they are subjective, self-reported scales, the studies could share the same explicit cut-off point, and yet that cut-off point could correspond to different levels of frailty in the studies (implicit thresholds), which will advise against calculating pooled estimates of diagnostic accuracy 10 .…”

Section: Diagnostic Accuracy Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Systematic reviews (SR) can be classified by type depending on the research question they are based on. This work identifies and describes the most relevant methodological resources to conduct high-quality reviews that answer clinical questions regarding prevalence, prognosis, diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of interventions. Methods: Methodological resources have been identified from literature searches and consulting guidelines from institutions that develop SRs. The selected resources are organized by type of SR, and stage of development of the review (formulation of the research question, development of the protocol, literature search, risk of bias assessment, synthesis of findings, assessment of the quality of evidence, and report of SR results and conclusions). Results: Although the different types of SRs are developed following the same steps, each SR type requires specific methods, differing in characteristics and complexity. The extent of methodological development varies by type of SR, with more solid guidelines available for diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of interventions SRs. This methodological toolkit describes the most up-to-date risk of bias instruments: Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic SRs, Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic accuracy SRs, Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2) and Risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions studies tool (ROBINS-I) for efficacy of interventions SRs, as well as the latest developments on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Conclusions: This structured compilation of the best methodological resources for each type of SR may prove to be a very useful tool for those researchers that wish to develop SRs or conduct methodological research works on SRs.

show abstract

Diagnostic test accuracy of self-reported frailty screening instruments in identifying community-dwelling older people at risk of frailty and pre-frailty: a systematic review protocol

Cited by 7 publications

References 22 publications

Feasibility and acceptability of commonly used screening instruments to identify frailty among community-dwelling older people: a mixed methods study

Feasibility and acceptability of commonly used screening instruments to identify frailty among community-dwelling older people: a mixed methods study

Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews

Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About