Difference among frailty assessment tools in predicating postoperative prognosis of elderly patients with mild traumatic brain injury.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Clinics Pub Date : 2025-01-25 DOI:10.1016/j.clinsp.2024.100554
Chunhua Ni, Chen Gu, Hua Liu, Feng Cheng, Chao Cheng, Xiaohua Xia
{"title":"Difference among frailty assessment tools in predicating postoperative prognosis of elderly patients with mild traumatic brain injury.","authors":"Chunhua Ni, Chen Gu, Hua Liu, Feng Cheng, Chao Cheng, Xiaohua Xia","doi":"10.1016/j.clinsp.2024.100554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) is quite prevalent in the elderly population, and the authors performed a retrospective analysis regarding the predictive value of frailty assessing tools regarding the prognosis of elderly mTBI patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All the patients underwent assessment of frailty upon admission using five tools including Frailty Phenotype (FP), FRAIL Scale (FS), Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The predicting potential of tools was analyzed against the prognosis defined by the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidence of frailty in elderly patients varies widely among the tools. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that only frail conditions defined by FP (p-value = 0.014) and FS (p-value = 0.004) could be employed for predicting unfavorable prognosis defined by GOSE, while frailty defined by CFS (p-value = 0.683), EFS (p-value = 0.301) and GFI (p-value = 0.925) could not. The ROC further showed that FP (AUC = 73.2 %) and FS (AUC = 76.2 %) had moderate power in predicting unfavorable conditions, while CFS (AUC = 46.1 %), EFS (AUC = 55.6 %), and GFI (AUC = 51.5 %) only had low or even no power.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>FP and FS could be used to predict the unfavorable prognosis associated with mTBI in the elderly population.</p>","PeriodicalId":10472,"journal":{"name":"Clinics","volume":"80 ","pages":"100554"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinsp.2024.100554","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) is quite prevalent in the elderly population, and the authors performed a retrospective analysis regarding the predictive value of frailty assessing tools regarding the prognosis of elderly mTBI patients.

Methods: All the patients underwent assessment of frailty upon admission using five tools including Frailty Phenotype (FP), FRAIL Scale (FS), Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The predicting potential of tools was analyzed against the prognosis defined by the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE).

Results: The incidence of frailty in elderly patients varies widely among the tools. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that only frail conditions defined by FP (p-value = 0.014) and FS (p-value = 0.004) could be employed for predicting unfavorable prognosis defined by GOSE, while frailty defined by CFS (p-value = 0.683), EFS (p-value = 0.301) and GFI (p-value = 0.925) could not. The ROC further showed that FP (AUC = 73.2 %) and FS (AUC = 76.2 %) had moderate power in predicting unfavorable conditions, while CFS (AUC = 46.1 %), EFS (AUC = 55.6 %), and GFI (AUC = 51.5 %) only had low or even no power.

Conclusions: FP and FS could be used to predict the unfavorable prognosis associated with mTBI in the elderly population.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinics
Clinics 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
129
审稿时长
52 days
期刊介绍: CLINICS is an electronic journal that publishes peer-reviewed articles in continuous flow, of interest to clinicians and researchers in the medical sciences. CLINICS complies with the policies of funding agencies which request or require deposition of the published articles that they fund into publicly available databases. CLINICS supports the position of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) on trial registration.
期刊最新文献
Small fiber neuropathy with dysautonomia and positive GPCR and FGFR-3 antibodies after the first BNT162b2 dose. TRIB3 is a biomarker of poor prognosis in laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma and may affect tumor development through PI3K / AKT / mTOR pathway. Variations of renal Doppler indices during the initial 24-hour predict acute kidney injury in patients with sepsis: A single-center observational case-control clinical study. Difference among frailty assessment tools in predicating postoperative prognosis of elderly patients with mild traumatic brain injury. Evaluation of corneal incision in femtosecond laser-assisted phacoemulsification.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1