2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.07.026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Timing and methods of frailty assessments in geriatric trauma patients: A systematic review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 80 publications
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The median GCS on presentation was 15 [14][15]. In terms of injury parameters, the median ISS was 9 [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16], head-AIS 2 [1][2][3][4], chest-AIS 2 [2][3], abdomen-AIS 1 [1][2] and extremity-AIS 2 [2][3]. Blunt injuries were the most common mechanism of injury (98%).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The median GCS on presentation was 15 [14][15]. In terms of injury parameters, the median ISS was 9 [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16], head-AIS 2 [1][2][3][4], chest-AIS 2 [2][3], abdomen-AIS 1 [1][2] and extremity-AIS 2 [2][3]. Blunt injuries were the most common mechanism of injury (98%).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These may be useful in development of elderly-specific triage tools and are an avenue for research [ 37 ]. Furthermore, there is an increasing recognition that frailty and sarcopenia are associated with adverse outcome following trauma [ 38 , 39 ]. Indeed frailty assessments appear superior to age in predicting outcome [ 40 ], however no published triage tools utilised frailty scoring.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite this limitation, the exploration of experience in this sample of participants who were predominately older (>60 years) is valid, as previous research has highlighted the need to explore the experiences of BTI in this older population (Baker & Lee, 2016;Cubitt et al, 2019). Although the findings reported in this study are not generalizable to the BTI population, it is likely that the experiences of these participants are applicable to other BTI patients and the quality and safety issues identified in this study are not unique to this sample alone.…”
Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%