English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Frail elderly people experience elevated mortality. However, no consensus exists on the definition of frailty, and many frailty scores have been developed. The main aim of this study was to compare the association between 35 frailty scores and incident cardiovascular disease (CVD), incident cancer, and all-cause mortality. Also, we aimed to assess whether frailty scores added predictive value to basic and adjusted models for these outcomes.    Methods and findings  Through a structured literature search, we identified 35 frailty scores that could be calculated at wave 2 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA), an observational cohort study. We analysed data from 5,294 participants, 44.9% men, aged 60 years and over. We studied the association between each of the scores and the incidence of CVD, cancer, and all-cause mortality during a 7-year follow-up using Cox proportional hazard models at progressive levels of adjustment. We also examined the added predictive performance of each score on top of basic models using Harrell’s C statistic. Using age of the participant as a timescale, in sex-adjusted models, hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals) for all-cause mortality ranged from 2.4 (95% CI: 1.7–3.3) to 26.2 (95% CI: 15.4–44.5). In further adjusted models including smoking status and alcohol consumption, HR ranged from 2.3 (95% CI: 1.6–3.1) to 20.2 (95% CI: 11.8–34.5). In fully adjusted models including lifestyle and comorbidity, HR ranged from 0.9 (95% CI: 0.5–1.7) to 8.4 (95% CI: 4.9–14.4). HRs for CVD and cancer incidence in sex-adjusted models ranged from 1.2 (95% CI: 0.5–3.2) to 16.5 (95% CI: 7.8–35.0) and from 0.7 (95% CI: 0.4–1.2) to 2.4 (95% CI: 1.0–5.7), respectively. In sex- and age-adjusted models, all frailty scores showed significant added predictive performance for all-cause mortality, increasing the C statistic by up to 3%. None of the scores significantly improved basic prediction models for CVD or cancer. A source of bias could be the differences in mortality follow-up time compared to CVD/cancer, because the existence of informative censoring cannot be excluded.    Conclusion  There is high variability in the strength of the association between frailty scores and 7-year all-cause mortality, incident CVD, and cancer. With regard to all-cause mortality, some scores give a modest improvement to the predictive ability. Our results show that certain scores clearly outperform others with regard to three important health outcomes in later life. Finally, we think that despite their limitations, the use of frailty scores to identify the elderly population at risk is still a useful measure, and the choice of a frailty score should balance feasibility with performance.

plos medicine

Comparative analysis of the association between 35 frailty scores and cardiovascular events, cancer, and total mortality in an elderly general population in England: An observational study