Application value of different frailty assessment tools in older patients undergoing major abdominal surgery

Background: Multiple frailty assessment tools are available for clinical practice, but the optimal tool remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of frail scale (FS), frailty phenotype (FP),11-item modified frailty index (mFI-11), Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), and Tilburg...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Junli You, Xuepiao Chen, Yu Rong, Sining Pan, Tianxiao Liu, Yubo Xie
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2025-10-01
Series:Experimental Gerontology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531556525001810
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849416769835368448
author Junli You
Xuepiao Chen
Yu Rong
Sining Pan
Tianxiao Liu
Yubo Xie
author_facet Junli You
Xuepiao Chen
Yu Rong
Sining Pan
Tianxiao Liu
Yubo Xie
author_sort Junli You
collection DOAJ
description Background: Multiple frailty assessment tools are available for clinical practice, but the optimal tool remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of frail scale (FS), frailty phenotype (FP),11-item modified frailty index (mFI-11), Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), and Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) for frailty taking the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) as the gold standard, and their ability to predict 30-day postoperative complications and prolonged length of stay (PLOS). Methods: This study recruited older patients (≥ 65 years) undergoing elective major abdominal surgery. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), and decision analysis curve (DCA) were used to validate the diagnostic, comprehensive, and predictive performance of 5 tools in frailty, complications, and PLOS. Results: EFS presented moderate consistency with CGA (Kappa = 0.544, P < 0.001), excellent performance in diagnosing frailty (area under the ROC curve (AUC) = 0.881, P < 0.001), and high clinical net benefit within the risk threshold ranging from 0.8 % to 57.44 %. Although EFS had the largest AUC for predicting complications (AUC = 0.612) and PLOS (AUC = 0.642) and showed high clinical net benefit, its predictive performance was poor (AUC < 0.7). The TOPSIS indicated that EFS required optimization in multiple aspects (closeness coefficient (Ci) < 0.8). Conclusion: EFS has excellent diagnostic performance and clinical net benefit for frailty. However, further research is required to identify optimal tools or combine EFS with additional indicators to enhance its comprehensive and predictive performance for complications and PLOS.
format Article
id doaj-art-415f2a4c44c34a19bb9536e1d966de5e
institution Kabale University
issn 1873-6815
language English
publishDate 2025-10-01
publisher Elsevier
record_format Article
series Experimental Gerontology
spelling doaj-art-415f2a4c44c34a19bb9536e1d966de5e2025-08-20T03:33:04ZengElsevierExperimental Gerontology1873-68152025-10-0120911285210.1016/j.exger.2025.112852Application value of different frailty assessment tools in older patients undergoing major abdominal surgeryJunli You0Xuepiao Chen1Yu Rong2Sining Pan3Tianxiao Liu4Yubo Xie5Department of Anesthesiology, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital &amp; Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China; Department of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, ChinaDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, ChinaDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, ChinaDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, ChinaDepartment of Anesthesiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, ChinaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital &amp; Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China; Corresponding author at: Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital &amp; Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.Background: Multiple frailty assessment tools are available for clinical practice, but the optimal tool remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of frail scale (FS), frailty phenotype (FP),11-item modified frailty index (mFI-11), Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS), and Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) for frailty taking the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) as the gold standard, and their ability to predict 30-day postoperative complications and prolonged length of stay (PLOS). Methods: This study recruited older patients (≥ 65 years) undergoing elective major abdominal surgery. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), and decision analysis curve (DCA) were used to validate the diagnostic, comprehensive, and predictive performance of 5 tools in frailty, complications, and PLOS. Results: EFS presented moderate consistency with CGA (Kappa = 0.544, P < 0.001), excellent performance in diagnosing frailty (area under the ROC curve (AUC) = 0.881, P < 0.001), and high clinical net benefit within the risk threshold ranging from 0.8 % to 57.44 %. Although EFS had the largest AUC for predicting complications (AUC = 0.612) and PLOS (AUC = 0.642) and showed high clinical net benefit, its predictive performance was poor (AUC < 0.7). The TOPSIS indicated that EFS required optimization in multiple aspects (closeness coefficient (Ci) < 0.8). Conclusion: EFS has excellent diagnostic performance and clinical net benefit for frailty. However, further research is required to identify optimal tools or combine EFS with additional indicators to enhance its comprehensive and predictive performance for complications and PLOS.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531556525001810FrailtyAgedDiagnostic performancePredictive performance
spellingShingle Junli You
Xuepiao Chen
Yu Rong
Sining Pan
Tianxiao Liu
Yubo Xie
Application value of different frailty assessment tools in older patients undergoing major abdominal surgery
Experimental Gerontology
Frailty
Aged
Diagnostic performance
Predictive performance
title Application value of different frailty assessment tools in older patients undergoing major abdominal surgery
title_full Application value of different frailty assessment tools in older patients undergoing major abdominal surgery
title_fullStr Application value of different frailty assessment tools in older patients undergoing major abdominal surgery
title_full_unstemmed Application value of different frailty assessment tools in older patients undergoing major abdominal surgery
title_short Application value of different frailty assessment tools in older patients undergoing major abdominal surgery
title_sort application value of different frailty assessment tools in older patients undergoing major abdominal surgery
topic Frailty
Aged
Diagnostic performance
Predictive performance
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531556525001810
work_keys_str_mv AT junliyou applicationvalueofdifferentfrailtyassessmenttoolsinolderpatientsundergoingmajorabdominalsurgery
AT xuepiaochen applicationvalueofdifferentfrailtyassessmenttoolsinolderpatientsundergoingmajorabdominalsurgery
AT yurong applicationvalueofdifferentfrailtyassessmenttoolsinolderpatientsundergoingmajorabdominalsurgery
AT siningpan applicationvalueofdifferentfrailtyassessmenttoolsinolderpatientsundergoingmajorabdominalsurgery
AT tianxiaoliu applicationvalueofdifferentfrailtyassessmenttoolsinolderpatientsundergoingmajorabdominalsurgery
AT yuboxie applicationvalueofdifferentfrailtyassessmenttoolsinolderpatientsundergoingmajorabdominalsurgery