599 605

Cited 0 times in

응급실에서 사용되는 노쇠 선별도구들 간의 비교: 체계적 고찰

Other Titles
 Comparison among frailty screening tools in the emergency department: a systematic review 
Authors
 이지환  ;  김민정  ;  유제성  ;  박유석  ;  정현수  ;  박인철  ;  정성필 
Citation
 Journal of the Korean Society of Emergency Medicine (대한응급의학회지), Vol.32(6) : 485-492, 2021-12 
Journal Title
Journal of the Korean Society of Emergency Medicine(대한응급의학회지)
ISSN
 1226-4334 
Issue Date
2021-12
Keywords
Frailty ; Emergency patients ; Elderly ; Review
Abstract
Objective:
It is important to identify high-risk elderly patients in the emergency department (ED), and various screening tools should be used. This study aimed to find the most appropriate tool by comparing frailty screening tools used in the ED.
Method:
The authors searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and KoreaMed databases for medical literature. Two or more frailty screening tools were studied. Sensitivities and values of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of each tool used in individual studies were compared.
Results:
After the screening process, six studies using 12 tools were selected. Most of the tools had low sensitivities. The sensitivities were 90% or more in case of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Program of Research to Integrate Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy (PRISMA-7). Seniors at Risk (ISAR) tools for frailty screening, Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) and Geriatric (G8) tools were identified for predicting postoperative mortality, and CFS, Fried and Stable, Unstable, Help to walk, Bedbound (SUHB) tools were used for determining bad composite outcomes. The areas under the curve values predicting outcome were as follows: 0.63-0.67 for death, 0.52-0.64 for postoperative death, 0.52-0.68 for postoperative adverse outcome, 0.55-0.64 for poor prognosis, 0.65-0.69 for activity daily living disability, 0.66-0.78 for functional decline, 0.58-0.61 for hospitalization, 0.57-0.59 for fall, and 0.77-0.91 for frailty screening.
Conclusion:
It was difficult to select the most appropriate tool among the 12 frailty tools included in this review. However, Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses, Loss of weight (FRAIL), Study of Osteoporotic Fracture (SOF), CFS, VES-13, and PRISMA-7 were relatively useful in the ED.
Files in This Item:
T202200447.pdf Download
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Emergency Medicine (응급의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Kim, Min Joung(김민정) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1634-5209
Park, Yoo Seok(박유석) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1543-4664
Park, In Cheol(박인철) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7033-766X
You, Je Sung(유제성) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2074-6745
Lee, Ji Hwan(이지환)
Chung, Sung Phil(정성필) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3074-011X
Chung, Hyun Soo(정현수) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6110-1495
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/188021
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse

Links