Self-Reported Frailty Screening Tools: Comparing Construct Validity of the Frailty Phenotype Questionnaire and FRAIL

Chia, Jia Qian; Low, Kristabella; Chew, Justin; Lim, Jun Pei; Goh, Liuh Ling; Wansaicheong, Gervais; Lim, Wee Shiong

doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2022.04.046

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The FRAIL scale has been shown to have a lower case detection rate for pre-frailty/frailty compared with the Cardiovascular Health Study frailty phenotype and Frailty Phenotype Questionnaire in healthy community-dwelling older persons. 25 The higher prevalence of sarcopenia in our study is also aligned with the conceptualization of sarcopenia as the biological substrate and antecedent of physical frailty. 2 Moreover, the prevalence of sarcopenia in our study (27%) was consistent with that reported in another population study in Singapore, which reported 13.6% in the overall population and 32.2% for those aged 60 years and above.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…This is chiefly attributable to the use of the self‐reported FRAIL scale to classify frailty. The FRAIL scale has been shown to have a lower case detection rate for pre‐frailty/frailty compared with the Cardiovascular Health Study frailty phenotype and Frailty Phenotype Questionnaire in healthy community‐dwelling older persons 25 . The higher prevalence of sarcopenia in our study is also aligned with the conceptualization of sarcopenia as the biological substrate and antecedent of physical frailty 2 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

See 1 more Smart Citation

SARC‐F and modified versions using arm and calf circumference: Diagnostic performance for sarcopenia screening and the impact of obesity

Lee,

Lim,

Tan

et al. 2023

Geriatrics Gerontology Int

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimSARC‐F is limited by low sensitivity for sarcopenia identification. As surrogates of muscle mass, mid‐arm circumference (MAC) and/or calf circumference have been proposed as additions to SARC‐F to enhance sarcopenia identification. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of SARC‐F, SARC‐CalF, SARC‐F + MAC, and SARC‐CalF + MAC in sarcopenia detection, and to assess the impact of obesity on their diagnostic performance.MethodsWe studied 230 healthy non‐frail community‐dwelling older adults age >50 years. We performed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for SARC‐F, SARC‐CalF, SARC‐F + MAC and SARC‐CalF + MAC against sarcopenia diagnosed by the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) 2019 as the reference standard. Obesity was defined by high waist circumference (men ≥90 cm, women ≥80 cm). We performed subgroup analysis to compare between obese and non‐obese groups.ResultsThe prevalence of sarcopenia was 27.0% by AWGS 2019. SARC‐CalF + MAC had the best diagnostic performance (area under the curve [AUC] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67–0.81; sensitivity 66.1%; specificity 69.1%), followed by SARC‐CalF (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.62–0.78; sensitivity 21.0%; specificity 95.8%). SARC‐F (AUC 0.57, 95% CI 0.49–0.66; sensitivity 0%; specificity 100%) performed significantly worsethan its modified versions (P < 0.05). There was higher accuracy of sarcopenia identification in obese compared with non‐obese groups for SARC‐F + MAC (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.65–0.85 vs. 0.58, 95% CI 0.46–0.70) and SARC‐CalF + MAC (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.66–0.85 vs. 0.70, 95% CI 0.59–0.81).ConclusionsThe addition of arm circumference to SARC‐CalF confers better diagnostic accuracy for sarcopenia identification, especially in the obese group. Thus, MAC may complement SARC‐CalF for community screening of sarcopenia amongst healthy community‐dwelling older adults by increasing sensitivity for the detection of sarcopenic obesity. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2023; ••: ••–••.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

SARC‐F and modified versions using arm and calf circumference: Diagnostic performance for sarcopenia screening and the impact of obesity

Lee,

Lim,

Tan

et al. 2023

Geriatrics Gerontology Int

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study design has been previously described. 16 , 17 ) Briefly, the inclusion criteria were (1) age 50–99 years at study enrollment, (2) community dwelling, and (3) independence in both basic and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). The exclusion criteria were cognitive impairment (prior diagnosis of dementia or modified Chinese version of the Mini-Mental State Examination [mCMMSE] score ≤21 18 )), inability to walk 8 m independently, or being a resident in long-term residential care.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This required the presence of (1) low muscle strength (<28 kg for men and <18 kg for women measured using a hydraulic hand dynamometer (North Coast Exacta Hydraulic Hand Dynamometer; North Coast Medical Inc., Morgan Hull, CA, USA) and/or low physical performance (as measured by usual gait speed <1.0 m/s on the 3-m walk test) and (2) low muscle mass. As previously described, 17 ) we measured the height-adjusted appendicular lean mass using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (Discovery APEX 13.3; Hologic, Bedford, MA, USA). Frailty was assessed using the Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illness, and Loss of weight (FRAIL) scale, a five-item self-report questionnaire, 24 ) and the modified Fried phenotypic criteria, a five-item scale comprising both self-report items and objective measurements.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Case-Finding for Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Comparison of Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment with SARC-F and SARC-CalF

Chua,

Chia,

Lim

et al. 2024

Ann Geriatr Med Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We compared the diagnostic performance of the short five-item and full seven-item Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment Questionnaire (MSRA-5 and MSRA-7) against the Strength, Assistance walking, Rise from a chair, Climb stairs, and Falls (SARC-F) and SARC-F with calf circumference (SARC-CalF) scales for sarcopenia in healthy community-dwelling older adults. Methods: We conducted a post-hoc cross-sectional secondary data analysis of a prospective cohort study, using data from 230 older adults (mean age 67.2±7.4 years, 92% Chinese, and 73% female) from the “Longitudinal Assessment of Biomarkers for characterization of early Sarcopenia and Osteosarcopenic Obesity in predicting frailty and functional decline in community-dwelling Asian older adults Study” (GeriLABS-2) conducted between December 2017 and March 2019 in Singapore. We performed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to ascertain the area under the curve (AUC) for sarcopenia diagnosis using the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 consensus criteria. We applied the Delong method to compare the AUCs of the four instruments.Results: The MSRA-5 and MSRA-7 demonstrated poor diagnostic performance (AUC of 0.511, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.433–0.589 and AUC of 0.526, 95% CI 0.445–0.606, respectively), compared to that in SARC-CalF (AUC of 0.739, 95% CI 0.671–0.808) and SARC-F (AUC of 0.564, 95% CI 0.591–0.636). The SARC-CalF demonstrated significantly superior discriminatory ability compared to that in the SARC-F, MSRA-5, and MSRA-7 (all p<0.01). The MSRA-5 demonstrated lower sensitivity (0.464) and specificity (0.597) than in the SARC-CalF (0.661 and 0.738, respectively), whereas the MSRA-7 had higher specificity (0.887) and lower sensitivity (0.145).Conclusions: The poor diagnostic performances of the MSRA-5 and MSRA-7 in our study suggest limitations of self-reported questionnaires for assessing general and dietary risk factors for sarcopenia in healthy and culturally diverse community-dwelling older adults. Studies in different populations are needed to ascertain the utility of the MSRA for the community detection of sarcopenia.

show abstract

The measurement properties and feasibility of FRAIL scale in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

NG,

CHENG,

QUEK

et al. 2024

Ageing Research Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-Reported Frailty Screening Tools: Comparing Construct Validity of the Frailty Phenotype Questionnaire and FRAIL

Cited by 4 publications

References 29 publications

SARC‐F and modified versions using arm and calf circumference: Diagnostic performance for sarcopenia screening and the impact of obesity

SARC‐F and modified versions using arm and calf circumference: Diagnostic performance for sarcopenia screening and the impact of obesity

Case-Finding for Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Comparison of Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment with SARC-F and SARC-CalF

The measurement properties and feasibility of FRAIL scale in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About