2021
DOI: 10.3390/medicines8090051
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Frailty in Primary Care: Validation of the simplified Zulfiqar Frailty Scale (sZFS)

Abstract: Introduction: Frailty scales are used very rarely by general practitioners as they are time consuming and are not well-adapted to current needs. Thus, we have designed with general practitioners a new scale for the early and rapid detection of frailty syndrome, called the simplified Zulfiqar Frailty Scale (sZFS). Patients and methods: This scale was tested in two general medicine practices in Normandy (France) for a total of six months and compared to the GFST tool “The Gerontopole Frailty Screening Tool”. Onl… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

2
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 16 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We developed a frailty screening tool that standardizes professional procedures and makes it possible for general practitioners to detect frailty in their elderly patients. The results of this study are very satisfactory and similar to previous studies [8][9][10]: in fact, the correlations between the Zulfiqar scale (and the simplified scale) and other frailty scales are very satisfactory [14][15][16][17][18]. In addition, the areas under the curve ranged from 0.70 to 0.94.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…We developed a frailty screening tool that standardizes professional procedures and makes it possible for general practitioners to detect frailty in their elderly patients. The results of this study are very satisfactory and similar to previous studies [8][9][10]: in fact, the correlations between the Zulfiqar scale (and the simplified scale) and other frailty scales are very satisfactory [14][15][16][17][18]. In addition, the areas under the curve ranged from 0.70 to 0.94.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%