No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Clinical practice guidelines for frailty vary in quality but guide primary health care: a systematic review
Abstract
Objective:
To appraise the methodological quality, clinical applicability, and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for frailty in primary care and identify research gaps using evidence mapping.
Study design and setting:
We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, guideline databases, and frailty or geriatric society websites. Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II, AGREE-Recommendations Excellence, and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare checklist were used to evaluate overall quality for frailty CPGs as "high", "medium" or "low" quality. We used bubble plots to show recommendations in CPGs.
Results:
Twelve CPGs were identified. According to the overall quality evaluation, five CPGs were considered as high quality, six as medium quality, and one as low quality. The recommendations in CPGs were generally consistent and mainly focused on frailty prevention, identification, multidisciplinary, non-pharmacological, and other treatments. However, evidence was lacking in some areas, such as effective prevention strategies and implementation of recommendations.
Conclusion:
The frailty CPGs vary in quality but have consistent recommendations that can guide clinical practice in primary care. This could point the way for future research to address existing gaps and facilitate the development of trustworthy CPGs for frailty.
... US and European HIV care guidelines suggest assessment for frailty using a validated metric among PWH starting at age 50 years, although differing assessments are often used. 52 Despite increased characterization of frailty in PWH, knowledge gaps persist. While geriatric-HIV programs have begun to emerge to meet the unique clinical needs of older PWH, including frailty assessments, such clinics are limited, and many HIV clinicians do not assess frailty in routine care. ...
... To date, a total of 12 clinical practice guidelines focused on frailty screening in primary care have been identified across multiple countries, but the quality of guidelines is mixed, and evidence is not robust. 52 A task force of the International Conference for Frailty and Sarcopenia Research (ICFSR) recommended that all adults aged 65 years or over should be screened for frailty using a simply validated frailty instrument. 53 At present, there remains limited evidence to guide how presence of frailty alters management of chronic conditions or routine health screening. ...
Frailty is a syndrome that can inform clinical treatments and interventions for older adults. Although implementation of frailty across medical subspecialties has the potential to improve care for the aging population, its uptake has been heterogenous. While frailty assessment is highly integrated into certain medical subspecialties, other subspecialties have only recently begun to consider frailty in the context of patient care. In order to advance the field of frailty‐informed care, we aim to detail what is known about frailty within the subspecialties of internal medicine. In doing so, we highlight cross‐disciplinary approaches that can enhance our understanding of frailty, focusing on ways to improve the implementation of frailty measures, as well as develop potential interventional strategies to mitigate frailty within these subspecialties. This has important implications for the clinical care of the aging population and can help guide future research.
... The minimum standard score for each domain is 0% and the maximum is 100%. Based on previous research and expert consensus, we established a cut-off score of at least 60% for AGREE-II and AGREE-REX domains as indicative of a high-quality guideline [18][19][20]. ...
Aims: Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is a rare chronic disease characterized by complement-mediated hemolysis, thrombosis, and bone marrow failure. This study aims to identify methodological limitations in Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for the treatment of PNH. Thus, we critically evaluate the guidelines, highlighting relevant recommendations supported by high-quality evidence to improve healthcare strategies. Methodology: A systematic search was carried out in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, COCHRANE, and TRIP databases. From 1995 initially identified references, 1649 articles underwent title and abstract screening. Twenty-three references were selected for full-text screening. Ultimately, 12 CPGs were included. Four independent reviewers assessed the CPGs’ methodological quality using the instruments “Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II” (AGREE II) and “Recommendation Excellence” (AGREE-REX). Their characteristics, as well as any differences in recommendations, were summarized and compared. Results: Twelve guidelines published from 2011 to 2022 by Spain, Brazil, Mexico, Israel, Canada, Turkey, Scotland, and the United Kingdom were included. The UK’s and Brazil’s CPGs received the highest scores. Overall, the CPGs scored strongly in the domains of “Scope and Purpose” and “Clarity of Presentation” since they addressed fundamental aspects, such as aim, specific health questions, target population, and language. All guidelines presented deficiencies in the “Editorial Independence” in AGREE II, and “Values and Preferences” in AGREE-REX, demonstrating the need for a careful revision and improvement of future versions. Conclusion: We found disparities in the methodological quality of the available CPGs. Despite being extremely important, recommendations on adapting treatment to local policies and further updates that include newly approved medications were absent. Approaches that prioritize the engagement of methodologists and multidisciplinary collaborators may also lead to higher quality CPGs for treating PNH.
... This is because socio-demographic status and dependency are risk factors leading to frailty (37)(38)(39). Therefore, healthcare professionals can utilize JFS-C to identify these specific groups and implement proactive measures, such as promoting healthy dietary habits and encouraging regular physical exercise, for the prevention of frailty in non-frail populations (40)(41)(42). For frail individuals, proactive identification and multidisciplinary interventions should be implemented (43,44). ...
Purpose
Frailty is a difficult-to-measure condition that is susceptible to adverse outcomes. The Japan Frailty Scale (JFS) is a tool for assessing frailty status in older adults. This study aimed to translate and culturally adapt the JFS into a Chinese version (JFS-C).
Materials and methods
The study included 160 older adults as participants. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, and test–retest reliability was conducted using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Convergent validity was evaluated by assessing the correlation between JFS-C and the Barthel Index, the Frail scale, and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Criterion validity was assessed by comparing JFS-C scores with the Frail scale.
Results
JFS-C demonstrated adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas = 0.711) and excellent test–retest reliability over a 7 to 10-day interval (ICC = 0.949). Correlation analysis showed a strong positive correlation between JFS-C and the Frail scale (r = 0.786, p < 0.001), a moderate negative correlation with the Barthel Index (r = −0.598, p < 0.001), and moderate correlations with various subscales of SF-36 (r = −0.574 to −0.661). However, no significant correlations were found between JFS-C and SF-36 mental health (r = −0.363, p < 0.001) or role emotional (r = −0.350, p < 0.001). Based on the reference standard of the Frail scale phenotype (score ≥ 2), the cutoff value for JFS-C was determined to be 3.
Conclusion
JFS-C demonstrates good reliability and validity in assessing frailty among the older population in China.
Frailty is a complex, age-related clinical condition that involves multiple contributing factors and raises the risk of adverse outcomes in older people. Given global population ageing trends, the growing prevalence and incidence of frailty pose significant challenges to health and social care systems in both high-income and lower-income countries. In this review, we highlight the disproportionate representation of research on frailty screening and management from high-income countries, despite how lower-income countries are projected to have a larger share of older people aged ≥60. However, more frailty research has been emerging from lower-income countries in recent years, paving the way for more context-specific guidelines and studies that validate frailty assessment tools and evaluate frailty interventions in the population. We then present further considerations for contextualising frailty in research and practice in lower-income countries. First, the heterogeneous manifestations of frailty call for research that reflects different geographies, populations, health systems, community settings and policy priorities; this can be driven by supportive collaborative systems between high-income and lower-income countries. Second, the global narrative around frailty and ageing needs re-evaluation, given the negative connotations linked with frailty and the introduction of intrinsic capacity by the World Health Organization as a measure of functional reserves throughout the life course. Finally, the social determinants of health as possible risk factors for frailty in lower-income countries and global majority populations, and potential socioeconomic threats of frailty to national economies warrant proactive frailty screening in these populations.
This study systematically reviewed the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for depression in children and adolescents and assessed the quality and recommendation consistency of those CPGs. Evidence mapping was presented to illustrate the research trends and identify gaps to guide future research. Literature on CPGs for depression was systematically collected from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, guideline databases, and psychiatric association/ society websites. The basic information, recommendations, methodological quality, and reporting quality of CPGs were extracted, and the supporting evidence strength for the included CPGs was analyzed in Excel. Four appraisers independently assessed the eligible CPGs using AGREE II instrument and the RIGHT checklist. All recommendations from the CPGs were summarized and analyzed, and the evidence mapping bubble charts were plotted in Excel. After excluding 15,184 records, 12 depression CPGs were eventually proved eligible, six of which were of high quality and six medium quality. A total of 39 major recommendations were summarized, 35 of which were supported by high-quality CPGs. Although direct comparisons are challenging due to differences in grading schemes and research quality, most CPGs share many pivotal recommendations that can help guide clinical practice. However, the evidence for some clinical problems is still lacking. Thus, more research is necessary on the screening and treatment of children and adolescents to put forward more evidence-based and high-quality recommendations.
Background
We developed clinical practice guidelines to provide health care providers with evidence-based recommendations for decisions related to the effective management of frailty and pre-frailty using nutrition and physical activity interventions.Methods
We based the recommendations on two systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Nutrition, physical activity, and combined nutrition and physical activity interventions for adults ≥65y were considered if study populations were identified as frail using a frailty tool or assessment. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated. We included physical outcomes, mobility, frailty, cognitive function, activities of daily living, falls, quality of life, diet quality, energy/fatigue levels, health services use, and caregiver outcomes.ResultsOverall, mobility improvements were moderate with nutritional strategies that optimize dietary intake, various types of physical activity interventions, and interventions that combine nutrition and physical activity. Physical outcomes, such as body mass and muscle strength, improved moderately with nutritional strategies and interventions that combined nutrition with physical activity. Frailty status improved with multi-component physical activity interventions. Strong recommendations include optimizing dietary intake, performing physical activity, and adopting interventions that combine nutrition and physical activity. We strongly recommend various types of physical activity including muscle strengthening activities, mobilization or rehabilitation exercises, and multi-component physical activity interventions.InterpretationTailored nutrition and physical activity interventions based on individual goals and health status are associated with improved clinical and physical outcomes. While the recommendations facilitate shared decision-making, we identified sparse application of validated frailty assessments and lack of standardized research outcomes as critical gaps in knowledge.
Background:
Despite the increasing number of older adults as the population ages, there is a lack of frailty prevention guidelines for community-dwelling older adults. The Korean Frailty and Aging Cohort Study conducted this systematic review of literature on contributors to frailty and developed guidelines on the primary prevention of frailty in community-dwelling older adults.
Methods:
This study updated a previous systematic review of contributors to frailty by adding the most recent articles. Based on this updated systematic review, experts in geriatrics and gerontology developed guidelines for preventing frailty using the Delphi method.
Results:
These guidelines categorized the recommendations into physical activity, resilience, oral health, management of non-communicable diseases, involvement in society, smoking cessation, and eating various kinds of food.
Conclusion:
Unlike previous frailty-related guidelines, this study developed evidence-based frailty prevention guidelines based on a systematic review. The guidelines are expected to contribute to the healthy aging of community-dwelling older adults by the primary prevention of frailty.
Aging has become a global problem, and the interest in healthy aging is growing. Healthy aging involves a focus on the maintenance of the function and well-being of elderly adults, rather than a specific disease. Thus, the management of frailty, which is an accumulated decline in function, is important for healthy aging. The adaptation method was used to develop clinical practice guidelines on frailty management that are applicable in primary care settings. The guidelines were developed in three phases: preparation (organization of committees and establishment of the scope of development), literature screening and evaluation (selection of the clinical practice guidelines to be adapted and evaluation of the guidelines using the Korean Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool), and confirmation of recommendations (three rounds of Delphi consensus and internal and external reviews). A total of 16 recommendations (five recommendations for diagnosis and assessment, 11 recommendations for intervention of frailty) were made through the guideline development process. These clinical practice guidelines provide overall guidance on the identification, evaluation, intervention, and monitoring of frailty, making them applicable in primary care settings. As aging and “healthy aging” become more and more important, these guidelines are also expected to increase in clinical usefulness.
Aims:
To systematically search for clinical practice guidelines focusing on the prevention and management of frailty, to evaluate their methodological quality and to synthesize the consensus recommendations.
Design:
A systematic review.
Data sources:
Guideline websites, related professional association websites and electronic databases were systematically searched through 4 November 2020.
Review methods:
We evaluated the methodological quality of the eligible guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II). Two reviewers synthesized the consensus recommendations proposed by at least two guidelines.
Results:
Eight guidelines met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The mean scores of the six domains were as follows: the 'scope and purpose' domain scored 88.0%, the 'clarity of presentation' domain scored 81.9%, the 'stakeholder involvement' domain scored 63.4%, the 'editorial independence' domain scored 62.2%, the 'rigour of development' domain scored 61.1% and the 'applicability' domain scored 57.8%. In total, we synthesized 23 recommendations for the prevention and management of frailty that are consistent among the included guidelines.
Conclusions:
The number of clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of frailty is limited. The methodological quality of existing guidelines needs to be improved. Our synthesized findings provide an intuitive, convenient and summative reference resource for frailty prevention and management. It' is worth noting that recommendations described in the included guidelines require additional detail.
Impact:
Although the prevention and management of frailty is urgent, there is currently a lack of evidences guiding these processes, especially in the prevention. The methodological quality of existing guidelines is insufficient, and the recommendations described in the guidelines require additional detail. Therefore, users of these guidelines, especially nurses, should make a careful decision according to the specific situation when using. Nurses also have a key role in providing more clinical evidences for the improvement of the quality of the guidelines.
Background
The Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality of 2009–2019 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding gout and hyperuricemia, aimed to improve the reporting quality of future guidelines.
Methods
We searched PubMed, the Chinese Biomedical Literature database, the Wanfang Database, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure from January 2009 to June 2019 for guidelines regarding gout and hyperuricemia. We also searched the websites of guideline development organizations (the Guidelines International Network, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the American College of Rheumatology, and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)). Furthermore, supplementary guidelines reported in included articles were systematically searched, as well as Google Scholar.
Results
Seventeen guidelines were included, of which one was in Chinese and 16 were in English. The mean reporting rate of the 35 items specified was 14.9 (42.5%); only five CPGs (29.4%) had a reporting rate >50%. Of the 35 items, three were very frequently reported. The reporting proportion of the seven domains (basic information, background, evidence, recommendations, review and quality assurance, funding and declaration and management of interests, and other information) were 64.7%, 36.8%, 50.6%, 42.9%, 8.82%, 33.8%, and 31.4%, respectively.
Conclusion
The reporting quality of the present guidelines for gout and hyperuricemia is relatively poor. We suggest that the RIGHT reporting checklist should be used by CPG developers to ensure higher reporting quality of future guidelines.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. © 2021 Page et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
Introduction
The prevalence of frailty at population level is unclear. We examined this in population-based studies, investigating sources of heterogeneity.
Methods
PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases were searched for observational population-level studies published between 1 January 1998 and 1 April 2020, including individuals aged ≥50 years, identified using any frailty measure. Prevalence estimates were extracted independently, assessed for bias and analysed using a random-effects model.
Results
In total, 240 studies reporting 265 prevalence proportions from 62 countries and territories, representing 1,755,497 participants, were included. Pooled prevalence in studies using physical frailty measures was 12% (95% CI = 11–13%; n = 178), compared with 24% (95% CI = 22–26%; n = 71) for the deficit accumulation model (those using a frailty index, FI). For pre-frailty, this was 46% (95% CI = 45–48%; n = 147) and 49% (95% CI = 46–52%; n = 29), respectively. For physical frailty, the prevalence was higher among females, 15% (95% CI = 14–17%; n = 142), than males, 11% (95% CI = 10–12%; n = 144). For studies using a FI, the prevalence was also higher in females, 29% (95% CI = 24–35%; n = 34) versus 20% (95% CI = 16–24%; n = 34), for males. These values were similar for pre-frailty. Prevalence increased according to the minimum age at study inclusion. Analysing only data from nationally representative studies gave a frailty prevalence of 7% (95% CI = 5–9%; n = 46) for physical frailty and 24% (95% CI = 22–26%; n = 44) for FIs.
Conclusions
Population-level frailty prevalence varied by classification and sex. Data were heterogenous and limited, particularly from nationally representative studies making the interpretation of differences by geographic region challenging. Common methodological approaches to gathering data are required to improve the accuracy of population-level prevalence estimates.
Protocol registration
PROSPERO-CRD42018105431.
Objective:
To assess the quality of recommendations from 161 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using AGREE-REX-D (Appraisal of Guidelines REsearch and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence Draft).
Design:
Cross-sectional study SETTING: International CPG community.
Participants:
Three hundred twenty-two international CPG developers, users, and researchers.
Intervention:
Participants were assigned to appraise one of 161 CPGs selected for the study using the AGREE-REX-D tool MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AGREE-REX-D scores of 161 CPGs (7-point scale, maximum 7).
Results:
Recommendations from 161 CPGs were appraised by 322 participants using the AGREE-REX-D. CPGs were developed by 67 different organizations. The total overall average score of the CPG recommendations was 4.23 (standard deviation (SD) = 1.14). AGREE-REX-D items that scored the highest were (mean; SD): evidence (5.51; 1.14), clinical relevance (5.95; SD 0.8), and patients/population relevance (4.87; SD 1.33), while the lowest scores were observed for the policy values (3.44; SD 1.53), local applicability (3,56; SD 1.47), and resources, tools, and capacity (3.49; SD 1.44) items. CPGs developed by government-supported organizations and developed in the UK and Canada had significantly higher recommendation quality scores with the AGREE-REX-D tool (p < 0.05) than their comparators.
Conclusions:
We found that there is significant room for improvement of some CPGs such as the considerations of patient/population values, policy values, local applicability and resources, tools, and capacity. These findings may be considered a baseline upon which to measure future improvements in the quality of CPGs.
Importance
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may lack rigor and suitability to the setting in which they are to be applied. Methods to yield clinical practice guideline recommendations that are credible and implementable remain to be determined.
Objective
To describe the development of AGREE-REX (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation–Recommendations Excellence), a tool designed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guideline recommendations.
Design, Setting, and Participants
A cross-sectional study of 322 international stakeholders representing CPG developers, users, and researchers was conducted between December 2015 and March 2019. Advertisements to participate were distributed through professional organizations as well as through the AGREE Enterprise social media accounts and their registered users.
Exposures
Between 2015 and 2017, participants appraised 1 of 161 CPGs using the Draft AGREE-REX tool and completed the AGREE-REX Usability Survey.
Main Outcomes and Measures
Usability and measurement properties of the tool were assessed with 7-point scales (1 indicating strong disagreement and 7 indicating strong agreement). Internal consistency of items was assessed with the Cronbach α, and the Spearman-Brown reliability adjustment was used to calculate reliability for 2 to 5 raters.
Results
A total of 322 participants (202 female participants [62.7%]; 83 aged 40-49 years [25.8%]) rated the survey items (on a 7-point scale). All 11 items were rated as easy to understand (with a mean [SD] ranging from 5.2 [1.38] for the alignment of values item to 6.3 [0.87] for the evidence item) and easy to apply (with a mean [SD] ranging from 4.8 [1.49] for the alignment of values item to 6.1 [1.07] for the evidence item). Participants provided favorable feedback on the tool’s instructions, which were considered clear (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.06]), helpful (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.00]), and complete (mean [SD], 5.8 [1.11]). Participants considered the tool easy to use (mean [SD], 5.4 [1.32]) and thought that it added value to the guideline enterprise (mean [SD], 5.9 [1.13]). Internal consistency of the items was high (Cronbach α = 0.94). Positive correlations were found between the overall AGREE-REX score and the implementability score (r = 0.81) and the clinical credibility score (r = 0.76).
Conclusions and Relevance
This cross-sectional study found that the AGREE-REX tool can be useful in evaluating CPG recommendations, differentiating among them, and identifying those that are clinically credible and implementable for practicing health professionals and decision makers who use recommendations to inform clinical policy.
LINK: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2766238?resultClick=3
Background:
Age-related frailty is a multidimensional dynamic condition associated with adverse patient outcomes and high costs for health systems. Several interventions have been proposed to tackle frailty. This correspondence article describes the journey through the development of evidence- and consensus-based guidelines on interventions aimed at preventing, delaying or reversing frailty in the context of the FOCUS (Frailty Management Optimisation through EIP-AHA Commitments and Utilisation of Stakeholders Input) project (664367-FOCUS-HP-PJ-2014). The rationale, framework, processes and content of the guidelines are described.
Main text:
The guidelines were framed into four questions - one general and three on specific groups of interventions - all including frailty as the primary outcome of interest. Quantitative and qualitative studies and reviews conducted in the context of the FOCUS project represented the evidence base. We followed the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks based on assessment of whether the problem is a priority, the magnitude of the desirable and undesirable effects, the certainty of the evidence, stakeholders' values, the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, the resource use, and other factors like acceptability and feasibility. Experts in the FOCUS consortium acted as panellists in the consensus process. Overall, we eventually recommended interventions intended to affect frailty as well as its course and related outcomes. Specifically, we recommended (1) physical activity programmes or nutritional interventions or a combination of both; (2) interventions based on tailored care and/or geriatric evaluation and management; and (3) interventions based on cognitive training (alone or in combination with exercise and nutritional supplementation). The panel did not support interventions based on hormone treatments or problem-solving therapy. However, all our recommendations were weak (provisional) due to the limited available evidence and based on heterogeneous studies of limited quality. Furthermore, they are conditional to the consideration of participant-, organisational- and contextual/cultural-related facilitators or barriers. There is insufficient evidence in favour of or against other types of interventions.
Conclusions:
We provided guidelines based on quantitative and qualitative evidence, adopting methodological standards, and integrating relevant stakeholders' inputs and perspectives. We identified the need for further studies of a higher methodological quality to explore interventions with the potential to affect frailty.
Objective
The task force of the International Conference of Frailty and Sarcopenia Research (ICFSR) developed these clinical practice guidelines to overview the current evidence-base and to provide recommendations for the identification and management of frailty in older adults.
Methods
These recommendations were formed using the GRADE approach, which ranked the strength and certainty (quality) of the supporting evidence behind each recommendation. Where the evidence-base was limited or of low quality, Consensus Based Recommendations (CBRs) were formulated. The recommendations focus on the clinical and practical aspects of care for older people with frailty, and promote person-centred care.
Recommendations for Screening and Assessment
The task force recommends that health practitioners case identify/screen all older adults for frailty using a validated instrument suitable for the specific setting or context (strong recommendation). Ideally, the screening instrument should exclude disability as part of the screening process. For individuals screened as positive for frailty, a more comprehensive clinical assessment should be performed to identify signs and underlying mechanisms of frailty (strong recommendation).
Recommendations for Management
A comprehensive care plan for frailty should address polypharmacy (whether rational or nonrational), the management of sarcopenia, the treatable causes of weight loss, and the causes of exhaustion (depression, anaemia, hypotension, hypothyroidism, and B12 deficiency) (strong recommendation). All persons with frailty should receive social support as needed to address unmet needs and encourage adherence to a comprehensive care plan (strong recommendation). First-line therapy for the management of frailty should include a multi-component physical activity programme with a resistance-based training component (strong recommendation). Protein/caloric supplementation is recommended when weight loss or undernutrition are present (conditional recommendation). No recommendation was given for systematic additional therapies such as cognitive therapy, problem-solving therapy, vitamin D supplementation, and hormone-based treatment. Pharmacological treatment as presently available is not recommended therapy for the treatment of frailty.
Objective:
To analyze and determine the comparative effectiveness of interventions targeting frailty prevention or treatment on frailty as a primary outcome and quality of life, cognition, depression, and adverse events as secondary outcomes.
Design:
Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).
Methods:
Data sources-Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by a systematic search of several electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and AMED. Duplicate title and abstract and full-text screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed. Data extraction-All RCTs examining frailty interventions aimed to decrease frailty were included. Comparators were standard care, placebo, or another intervention. Data synthesis-We performed both standard pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian NMA. Dichotomous outcome data were pooled using the odds ratio effect size, whereas continuous outcome data were pooled using the standardized mean difference (SMD) effect size. Interventions were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for each outcome. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.
Results:
A total of 66 RCTs were included after screening of 7090 citations and 749 full-text articles. NMA of frailty outcome (including 21 RCTs, 5262 participants, and 8 interventions) suggested that the physical activity intervention, when compared to placebo and standard care, was associated with reductions in frailty (SMD -0.92, 95% confidence interval -1.55, -0.29). According to SUCRA, physical activity intervention and physical activity plus nutritional supplementation were probably the most effective intervention (100% and 71% likelihood, respectively) to reduce frailty. Physical activity was probably the most effective or the second most effective interventions for all included outcomes.
Conclusion and implications:
Physical activity is one of the most effective frailty interventions. The quality of evidence of the current review is low and very low. More robust RCTs are needed to increase the confidence of our NMA results and the quality of evidence.
Objectives:
Systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are unique knowledge syntheses that require tailored approaches to, and greater subjectivity in, design and execution compared with other SRs in clinical epidemiology. We provide review authors structured direction on how to design and conduct methodologically rigorous SRs of CPGs.
Study design and setting:
A guidance paper outlining suggested methodology for conducting all stages of an SR of CPGs. We present concrete examples of approaches used by published reviews, including a case exemplar demonstrating how this methodology was applied to our own SR of CPGs.
Results:
Review context and the unique characteristics of CPGs as research syntheses or clinical guidance statements must be considered in all aspects of review design and conduct. Researchers should develop a "PICAR" statement to help form and focus on the research question(s) and eligibility criteria, assess CPG quality using a validated appraisal tool, and extract, analyze, and summarize data in a way that is cogent and transparent.
Conclusion:
SRs of CPGs can be used to systematically identify, assess, and summarize the current state of guidance on a clinical topic. These types of reviews often require methodological tailoring to ensure that their objectives and timelines are effectively and efficiently addressed; however, they should all meet the criteria for an SR, follow a rigorous methodological approach, and adhere to transparent reporting practices.
Objective
To evaluate the effects of the population-based, person-centred and integrated care service ‘Embrace’ at twelve months on three domains comprising health, wellbeing and self-management among community-living older people.
Methods
Embrace supports older adults to age in place. A multidisciplinary team provides care and support, with intensity depending on the older adults’ risk profile. A randomised controlled trial was conducted in fifteen general practices in the Netherlands. Older adults (≥75 years) were included and stratified into three risk profiles: Robust, Frail and Complex care needs, and randomised to Embrace or care as usual (CAU). Outcomes were recorded in three domains. The EuroQol-5D-3L and visual analogue scale, INTERMED for the Elderly Self-Assessment, Groningen Frailty Indicator and Katz-15 were used for the domain ‘Health.’ The Groningen Well-being Indicator and two quality of life questions measured ‘Wellbeing.’ The Self-Management Ability Scale and Partners in Health scale for older adults (PIH-OA) were used for ‘Self-management.’ Primary and secondary outcome measurements differed per risk profile. Data were analysed with multilevel mixed-model techniques using intention-to-treat and complete case analyses, for the whole sample and per risk profile.
Results
1456 eligible older adults participated (49%) and were randomized to Embrace (n(T0) = 747, n(T1) = 570, mean age 80.6 years (SD 4.5), 54.2% female) and CAU (n(T0) = 709, n(T1) = 561, mean age 80.8 years (SD 4.7), 55.6% female). Embrace participants showed a greater–but clinically irrelevant–improvement in self-management (PIH-OA Knowledge subscale effect size [ES] = 0.14), and a greater–but clinically relevant–deterioration in health (ADL ES = 0.10; physical ADL ES = 0.13) compared to CAU. No differences in change in wellbeing were observed. This picture was also found in the risk profiles. Complete case analyses showed comparable results.
Conclusions
This study found no clear benefits to receiving person-centred and integrated care for twelve months for the domains of health, wellbeing and self-management in community-living older adults.
Objective
To develop Clinical Practice Guidelines for the screening, assessment and management of the geriatric condition of frailty.
Methods
An adapted Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to develop the guidelines. This process involved detailed evaluation of the current scientific evidence paired with expert panel interpretation. Three categories of Clinical Practice Guidelines recommendations were developed: strong, conditional, and no recommendation.
Recommendations
Strong recommendations were (1) use a validated measurement tool to identify frailty; (2) prescribe physical activity with a resistance training component; and (3) address polypharmacy by reducing or deprescribing any inappropriate/superfluous medications. Conditional recommendations were (1) screen for, and address modifiable causes of fatigue; (2) for persons exhibiting unintentional weight loss, screen for reversible causes and consider food fortification and protein/caloric supplementation; and (3) prescribe vitamin D for individuals deficient in vitamin D. No recommendation was given regarding the provision of a patient support and education plan.
Conclusions
The recommendations provided herein are intended for use by healthcare providers in their management of older adults with frailty in the Asia Pacific region. It is proposed that regional guideline support committees be formed to help provide regular updates to these evidence-based guidelines.
The quality of reporting practice guidelines is often poor, and there is no widely accepted guidance or standards for such reporting in health care. The international RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) Working Group was established to address this gap. The group followed an existing framework for developing guidelines for health research reporting and the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach. It developed a checklist and an explanation and elaboration statement. The RIGHT checklist includes 22 items that are considered essential for good reporting of practice guidelines: basic information (items 1 to 4), background (items 5 to 9), evidence (items 10 to 12), recommendations (items 13 to 15), review and quality assurance (items 16 and 17), funding and declaration and management of interests (items 18 and 19), and other information (items 20 to 22). The RIGHT checklist can assist developers in reporting guidelines, support journal editors and peer reviewers when considering guideline reports, and help health care practitioners understand and implement a guideline.
Background & aims:
Nutritional support in the acutely ill is a complex topic. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to assist healthcare professionals working in this field. However, the quality of these clinical guidelines has not yet been systematically assessed. The objective of our study was to identify and assess the quality of CPGs on nutrition in critically ill adult patients.
Methods:
We performed a systematic search to identify CPGs on nutrition in critically ill adult patients. Three independent appraisers assessed six domains (scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity of presentation, applicability and editorial independence) of the eligible CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.
Results:
Nine CPGs were selected. Overall agreement among appraisers was very good (ICC: 0.853; 95% CI: 0.820-0.881). The mean scores for each AGREE domain were the following: "scope and purpose" 76.2% ± 13.7%; "stakeholder involvement" 42.8% ± 16.5%; "rigour of development" 57.9% ± 18.1%; "clarity of presentation" 76.9% ± 13.7%; "applicability" 30.1% ± 22.8%; and 42.1% ± 23.9% for "editorial independence". Four CPGs were deemed "Recommended"; three "Recommended with modifications"; and two "Not recommended". We did not observe improvement over time in the overall quality of the CPGs.
Conclusions:
The overall quality of CPGs on nutrition in critically ill adults is suboptimal, with only four CPGs being recommended for clinical use. Our results highlight the need to revise and improve CPG development processes in this field.
Background: frailty is an especially problematic expression of population ageing. International guidelines recommend routine identification of frailty to provide evidence-based treatment, but currently available tools require additional resource.
Objectives: to develop and validate an electronic frailty index (eFI) using routinely available primary care electronic health record data.
Study design and setting: retrospective cohort study. Development and internal validation cohorts were established using a randomly split sample of the ResearchOne primary care database. External validation cohort established using THIN database.
Participants: patients aged 65–95, registered with a ResearchOne or THIN practice on 14 October 2008.
Predictors: we constructed the eFI using the cumulative deficit frailty model as our theoretical framework. The eFI score is calculated by the presence or absence of individual deficits as a proportion of the total possible. Categories of fit, mild, moderate and severe frailty were defined using population quartiles.
Outcomes: outcomes were 1-, 3- and 5-year mortality, hospitalisation and nursing home admission.
Statistical analysis: hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using bivariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Discrimination was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Calibration was assessed using pseudo-R² estimates.
Results: we include data from a total of 931,541 patients. The eFI incorporates 36 deficits constructed using 2,171 CTV3 codes. One-year adjusted HR for mortality was 1.92 (95% CI 1.81–2.04) for mild frailty, 3.10 (95% CI 2.91–3.31) for moderate frailty and 4.52 (95% CI 4.16–4.91) for severe frailty. Corresponding estimates for hospitalisation were 1.93 (95% CI 1.86–2.01), 3.04 (95% CI 2.90–3.19) and 4.73 (95% CI 4.43–5.06) and for nursing home admission were 1.89 (95% CI 1.63–2.15), 3.19 (95% CI 2.73–3.73) and 4.76 (95% CI 3.92–5.77), with good to moderate discrimination but low calibration estimates.
Conclusions: the eFI uses routine data to identify older people with mild, moderate and severe frailty, with robust predictive validity for outcomes of mortality, hospitalisation and nursing home admission. Routine implementation of the eFI could enable delivery of evidence-based interventions to improve outcomes for this vulnerable group.
Background
The need for systematic methods for reviewing evidence is continuously increasing. Evidence mapping is one emerging method. There are no authoritative recommendations for what constitutes an evidence map or what methods should be used, and anecdotal evidence suggests heterogeneity in both. Our objectives are to identify published evidence maps and to compare and contrast the presented definitions of evidence mapping, the domains used to classify data in evidence maps, and the form the evidence map takes. Methods
We conducted a systematic review of publications that presented results with a process termed “evidence mapping” or included a figure called an “evidence map.” We identified publications from searches of ten databases through 8/21/2015, reference mining, and consulting topic experts. We abstracted the research question, the unit of analysis, the search methods and search period covered, and the country of origin. Data were narratively synthesized. ResultsThirty-nine publications met inclusion criteria. Published evidence maps varied in their definition and the form of the evidence map. Of the 31 definitions provided, 67 % described the purpose as identification of gaps and 58 % referenced a stakeholder engagement process or user-friendly product. All evidence maps explicitly used a systematic approach to evidence synthesis. Twenty-six publications referred to a figure or table explicitly called an “evidence map,” eight referred to an online database as the evidence map, and five stated they used a mapping methodology but did not present a visual depiction of the evidence. Conclusions
The principal conclusion of our evaluation of studies that call themselves “evidence maps” is that the implied definition of what constitutes an evidence map is a systematic search of a broad field to identify gaps in knowledge and/or future research needs that presents results in a user-friendly format, often a visual figure or graph, or a searchable database. Foundational work is needed to better standardize the methods and products of an evidence map so that researchers and policymakers will know what to expect of this new type of evidence review. Systematic review registrationAlthough an a priori protocol was developed, no registration was completed; this review did not fit the PROSPERO format.
Introduction
Extensive research has been undertaken over the last 30 years on the methods underpinning clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), including their development, updating, reporting, tailoring for specific purposes, implementation and evaluation. This has resulted in an increasing number of terms, tools and acronyms. Over time, CPGs have shifted from opinion-based to evidence-informed, including increasingly sophisticated methodologies and implementation strategies, and thus keeping abreast of evolution in this field of research can be challenging.
Methods
This article collates findings from an extensive document search, to provide a guide describing standards, methods and systems reported in the current CPG methodology and implementation literature. This guide is targeted at those working in health care quality and safety and responsible for either commissioning, researching or delivering health care. It is presented in a way that can be updated as the field expands.
Conclusion
CPG development and implementation have attracted the most international interest and activity, whilst CPG updating, adopting (with or without contextualization), adapting and impact evaluation are less well addressed.
Reliability coefficients often take the form of intraclass correlation coefficients. In this article, guidelines are given for choosing among 6 different forms of the intraclass correlation for reliability studies in which n targets are rated by k judges. Relevant to the choice of the coefficient are the appropriate statistical model for the reliability study and the applications to be made of the reliability results. Confidence intervals for each of the forms are reviewed. (23 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
Objective
This study aims to appraise and summarize consistent recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for identification and management of frailty to maintain and improve functional independence of elderly population.MethodsA systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL electronic databases using database-specific search terms in two broad areas “guidelines” and “frailty”, and a manual search of websites with the key phrase “frailty guideline” was performed. The inclusion criteria included CPGs focusing on identifying and managing frailty in population >65 years old, published in English since January 2010. Three reviewers independently assessed guideline quality using the AGREE II instrument. Data extraction was performed, followed by compilation and comparison of all recommendations to identify the key consistent recommendations.ResultsSix CPGs met the inclusion criteria; however, only three CPGs had high methodological quality in accordance with AGREE II appraisal. The average AGREE II scores of all six CPGs were: 84.5%, 68%, 46.5%, 81.5%, 56.3%, and 60.2% for domains 1–6 (scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, and editorial independence) respectively. A total of 54 recommendations were identified, with 12 key recommendations suggested frequently by the CPGs.Conclusion
The AGREE II instrument identified strengths and weaknesses of the CPGs, but failed to assess clinical implications and feasibility of the guidelines. Further research is needed to improve clinical relevance of CPGs in the identification and management of frailty. The feasibility in implementing these guidelines with regards to cost-effectiveness of frailty screening warrants further investigation.
Objective:
Frailty is considered to be one of the risk factors of disability. However, the results of original reported studies are not consistent with respect to the frailty and incidence of disability, and previously published meta-analyses have also shown inconsistent results. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the relationship between the different stages of frailty and the incidence of disability by examining updated overall trends in community-dwelling elders.
Study design:
Cohort studies in English or Chinese based on associations between frailty and incident disability risks that were published from 2000 until the current date were researched using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases.
Methods:
The Q test and I2 statistic were used to examine between-study heterogeneity. Random-effect models were adopted to synthesize the results based on the study heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were also conducted to explore the possible sources of between-study heterogeneity based on the characteristics of participants.
Results:
Eighteen cohort studies with 88,906 participants were included in our meta-analyses. Compared with the non-frailty category, the combined relative risks (RRs) (95% confidence interval [CI]) of the disability were 1.66 (1.49-1.85) and 2.53 (2.01-3.14) for the category of prefrailty and frailty, respectively. Results suggested that the incident risk of disability at follow-up times <5 (RR = 3.19, 95% CI = 2.25-4.53) was significantly higher than for follow-up times ≥5 in the frailty category (RR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.55-2.56). The risk in a sample size of ≥1000 (RR = 2.78, 95% CI = 2.04-3.14) was significantly higher than that when the sample size was <1000 (RR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.53-2.37) in the frailty group. Compared with a value adjusted for comorbidity, the unadjusted comorbidity was significantly higher in the prefrailty category (1.90 vs. 1.52). Compared with a value adjusted for education, the unadjusted education was significantly higher in the prefrailty category (1.81 vs. 1.46). No publication bias was observed.
Conclusion:
The overall meta-analysis confirms that frailty has significantly increased the incident risk of disability. Frail, elderly people are at the highest risk of future disability and may be adequate candidates for taking part in prevention and intervention programs.
Background:
Although frailty of older people has been shown to be associated with numerous adverse health outcomes, evidence on healthcare costs associated with frailty is scarce.
Methods:
Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and AMED were electronically searched in January 2019 based on a protocol in accordance with the PRISMA statement using Medical Subjective Heading and free text terms, with explosion functions. Language restriction was not applied. Studies were considered if they were published between 2000 to January 2019 and provided healthcare costs stratified by the frailty status categories among community-dwelling older people with a mean age of 60 years or higher. Reference lists of the included studies were reviewed for additional studies. Healthcare costs according to frailty status were compared using standardized mean difference random-effects meta-analysis.
Results:
The systematic review found 3116 citations. After screening for title, abstract, and full-text for eligibility, 5 studies involving 3742362 participants were included. Healthcare costs were compared across three frailty status, robust, prefrailty, and frailty. Both prefrailty (5 studies, Hedges' g = 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.15-0.33, p < 0.001) and frailty (5 studies, Hedges' g = 0.62, 95%CI = 0.61-0.62, p < 0.001) were associated with significantly higher healthcare costs when compared with robustness. There was a high degree of heterogeneity. The risk of publication bias was considered to be low in funnel plots.
Conclusions:
This systematic review and meta-analysis found a dose-response increase in the healthcare costs associated with frailty among community-dwelling older adults. Future research should recognize frailty as an important factor associated with increased healthcare costs.
With older adults living longer, health service providers have increasingly turned their attention towards frailty and its significant consequences for health and well-being. Consequently, frailty screening has gained momentum as a possible health policy answer to the question of what can be done to prevent frailty's onset and progression. However, who should be screened for frailty, where and when remains a subject of extensive debate. The purpose of this narrative review is to explore the dimensions of this question with reference to Wilson and Jungner's time-tested and widely accepted principles for acceptable screening within community settings. Although the balance of the emerging evidence to support frailty screening is promising, significant gaps in the evidence base remain. Consequently, when assessed against Wilson and Jungner's principles, extensive population screening does not appear to be supported by the evidence. However, screening for the purpose of case-finding may prove useful among older adults.
Background:
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.
Methods:
an electronic systematic literature search was conducted in August 2016 using four databases (Embase, Medline, CINAHL and PsycINFO) for prospective cohort studies published in 2000 or later, examining the mortality risk according to frailty measured by FI. A meta-analysis was performed to synthesise pooled mortality risk estimates.
Results:
of 2,617 studies identified by the systematic review, 18 cohorts from 19 studies were included. Thirteen cohorts showed hazard ratios (HRs) per 0.01 increase in FI, six cohorts showed HRs per 0.1 increase in FI and two cohorts each showed odds ratios (ORs) per 0.01 and 0.1 increase in FI, respectively. All meta-analyses suggested that higher FI was significantly associated with higher mortality risk (pooled HR per 0.01 FI increase = 1.039, 95% CI = 1.033-1.044, P < 0.001; pooled HR per 0.1 FI increase = 1.282, 95% CI = 1.258-1.307, P < 0.001; pooled OR per 0.01 FI increase = 1.054, 95% CI = 1.040-1.068, P < 0.001; pooled OR per 0.1 FI increase = 1.706, 95% CI = 1.547-1.881, P < 0.001). Meta-regression analysis among 13 cohorts with HR per 0.01 increase in FI showed that the studies with shorter follow-up periods and with lower female proportion were associated with higher mortality risks by FI.
Conclusions:
this systematic review and meta-analysis was the first to quantitatively demonstrate that frailty measured by the FI is a significant predictor of mortality.
Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional and multidisciplinary diagnostic process focused on determining the clinical profile, pathological risk, residual skills, short- and long-term prognosis, and personalized therapeutic and care plan of the functionally compromised and frail older subjects. Previous evidence suggested that the effectiveness of CGA programs may be influenced by settings where the CGA is performed [i.e., hospital, posthospital discharge/long-term care facilities (LTCFs), or community/home] as well as the specific clinical conditions of older frail individuals. In this scenario, CGA and quality of care in LTCFs have been a challenge for decades. In the present article, we systematically reviewed evidence from the last three decades of clinical research devoted to systematic implementation of CGA programs in LTCFs, that is, nursing homes, care homes, residential homes, and rehabilitation facilities. In the United States, all LTC residents must undergo a CGA on a regular basis on admission to a facility, prompting the development of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Minimum Data Set, a specific CGA-based assessment tool in this population. In the LTCF setting, the present reviewed evidence suggested that most complex older subjects may benefit from a CGA in terms of improved quality of care and reduced hospitalization events and that CGA must be standardized across healthcare settings to promote greater health system integration and coordination. In the LTCF setting, particularly in nursing homes, other new and promising CGA programs have also been proposed to develop rapid screening CGA-based tools to enhance in the future the ability of primary care physicians to recognize and treat geriatric syndromes in this setting. However, at present, the interRAI suite of instruments represented an integrated health information system that has the potential to provide person-centered information transcending healthcare settings.
Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a multidisciplinary diagnostic and treatment process that identifies medical, psychosocial, and functional capabilities of older adults to develop a coordinated plan to maximize overall health with aging. Specific criteria used by CGA programs to evaluate patients include age, medical comorbidities, psychosocial problems, previous or predicted high healthcare utilization, change in living situation, and specific geriatric conditions. However, no universal criteria have been agreed upon to readily identify patients who are likely to benefit from CGA. Evidence from randomized controlled trials and large systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggested that the healthcare setting may modify the effectiveness of CGA programs. Home CGA programs and CGA performed in the hospital were shown to be consistently beneficial for several health outcomes. In contrast, the data are conflicting for posthospital discharge CGA programs, outpatient CGA consultation, and CGA-based inpatient geriatric consultation services. The effectiveness of CGA programs may be modified also by particular settings or specific clinical conditions, with tailored CGA programs in older frail patients evaluated for preoperative assessment, admitted or discharged from emergency departments and orthogeriatric units or with cancer and cognitive impairment. CGA is capable of effectively exploring multiple domains in older age, being the multidimensional and multidisciplinary tool of choice to determine the clinical profile, the pathologic risk and the residual skills as well as the short- and long-term prognosis to facilitate the clinical decision making on the personalized care plan of older persons.
A range of organisations are engaged in the production of evidence on the effects of health, social and economic development programs on human welfare outcomes. However, evidence is often scattered around different databases, websites and the grey literature, and is often presented in inaccessible formats. Lack of overview of the evidence in a specific field can be a barrier to the use of existing research and prevent efficient use of limited resources for new research. Evidence & Gap Maps (EGMs) aim to address these issues and complement existing synthesis and mapping approaches. EGMs are a new addition to the tools available to support evidence informed policy making. To provide an accessible resource for researchers, commissioners and decision makers EGMs provide thematic collections of evidence structured around a framework which schematically represents the types of interventions and outcomes of relevance to a particular sector. By mapping the existing evidence using this framework EGMs provide a visual overview of what we know and don’t know about the effects of different programs. They make existing evidence available and by providing links to user friendly summaries of relevant studies EGMs can facilitate the use of existing evidence for decision-making. They identify key “gaps” where little or no evidence from impact evaluations and systematic reviews is available, and can be a valuable resource to inform a strategic approach to building the evidence base in a particular sector. The paper will introduce readers to the concept and methods of EGMs and present a demonstration of the EGM tool using existing examples.
Objective:
Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is a widely used reliability index in test-retest, intrarater, and interrater reliability analyses. This article introduces the basic concept of ICC in the content of reliability analysis.
Discussion for researchers:
There are 10 forms of ICCs. Because each form involves distinct assumptions in their calculation and will lead to different interpretations, researchers should explicitly specify the ICC form they used in their calculation. A thorough review of the research design is needed in selecting the appropriate form of ICC to evaluate reliability. The best practice of reporting ICC should include software information, "model," "type," and "definition" selections.
Discussion for readers:
When coming across an article that includes ICC, readers should first check whether information about the ICC form has been reported and if an appropriate ICC form was used. Based on the 95% confident interval of the ICC estimate, values less than 0.5, between 0.5 and 0.75, between 0.75 and 0.9, and greater than 0.90 are indicative of poor, moderate, good, and excellent reliability, respectively.
Conclusion:
This article provides a practical guideline for clinical researchers to choose the correct form of ICC and suggests the best practice of reporting ICC parameters in scientific publications. This article also gives readers an appreciation for what to look for when coming across ICC while reading an article.
Background:
Primary care-based comprehensive care programs have the potential to improve outcomes in frail older adults. We evaluated the impact of the Geriatric Care Model (GCM) on the quality of life of community-dwelling frail older adults.
Methods:
A 24-month stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted between May 2010 and March 2013 in 35 primary care practices in the Netherlands, and included 1147 frail older adults. The intervention consisted of a geriatric in-home assessment by a practice nurse, followed by a tailored care plan. Reassessment occurred every six months. Nurses worked together with primary care physicians and were supervised and trained by geriatric expert teams. Complex patients were reviewed in multidisciplinary consultations. The primary outcome was quality of life (SF-12). Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, functional limitations, self-rated health, psychological wellbeing, social functioning and hospitalizations.
Results:
Intention-to-treat analyses based on multilevel modeling showed no significant differences between the intervention group and usual care regarding SF-12 and most secondary outcomes. Only for IADL limitations we found a small intervention effect in patients who received the intervention for 18months (B=-0.25, 95%CI=-0.43 to -0.06, p=0.007), but this effect was not statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons.
Conclusion:
The GCM did not show beneficial effects on quality of life in frail older adults in primary care, compared to usual care. This study strengthens the idea that comprehensive care programs add very little to usual primary care for this population.
Trial registration:
The Netherlands National Trial Register NTR2160.
Frailty is a clinical state in which there is an increase in an individual's vulnerability for developing increased dependency and/or mortality when exposed to a stressor. Frailty can occur as the result of a range of diseases and medical conditions. A consensus group consisting of delegates from 6 major international, European, and US societies created 4 major consensus points on a specific form of frailty: physical frailty. 1. Physical frailty is an important medical syndrome. The group defined physical frailty as "a medical syndrome with multiple causes and contributors that is characterized by diminished strength, endurance, and reduced physiologic function that increases an individual's vulnerability for developing increased dependency and/or death." 2. Physical frailty can potentially be prevented or treated with specific modalities, such as exercise, protein-calorie supplementation, vitamin D, and reduction of polypharmacy. 3. Simple, rapid screening tests have been developed and validated, such as the simple FRAIL scale, to allow physicians to objectively recognize frail persons. 4. For the purposes of optimally managing individuals with physical frailty, all persons older than 70 years and all individuals with significant weight loss (>= 5%) due to chronic disease should be screened for frailty. Copyright (c) 2013 - American Medical Directors Association, Inc.
Frailty is the most problematic expression of population ageing. It is a state of vulnerability to poor resolution of homoeostasis after a stressor event and is a consequence of cumulative decline in many physiological systems during a lifetime. This cumulative decline depletes homoeostatic reserves until minor stressor events trigger disproportionate changes in health status. In landmark studies, investigators have developed valid models of frailty and these models have allowed epidemiological investigations that show the association between frailty and adverse health outcomes. We need to develop more efficient methods to detect frailty and measure its severity in routine clinical practice, especially methods that are useful for primary care. Such progress would greatly inform the appropriate selection of elderly people for invasive procedures or drug treatments and would be the basis for a shift in the care of frail elderly people towards more appropriate goal-directed care.
An analysis is presented of a geriatric evaluation unit (GEU) established at the Sepulveda VA Medical Center in 1979 to provide comprehensive interdisciplinary assessment and treatment of geriatric inpatients. The data on 74 patients admitted during the first year show that major improvements can occur in several outcome areas. Placement location was improved over expectations in 48.4 percent of patients, thus permitting a higher level of independence with a lower level of care requirements. Functional status (Katz ADL scale) improved in two-thirds of the patients who could have shown improvement. An average of almost four new treatable disorders not noted by previous physicians were diagnosed per patient. The mean daily number of prescribed drugs was reduced by 32 percent per patient, and the total number of drug doses by 43 percent. Though limited by the unique aspects of the vA situation and by lack of a control group, the findings lend support to the efficacy and value of the GEU concept. (A randomized controlled study is in progress.)
Agree II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare
- Brouwers
Systematic review of current guideline appraisals performed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II instrument-a third of AGREE II users apply a cut-off for guideline quality
- Hoffmann-Esser