A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3145
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A systematic review of assessment tools for cognitive frailty: Use, psychometric properties, and clinical utility. | LitMetric

A systematic review of assessment tools for cognitive frailty: Use, psychometric properties, and clinical utility.

J Frailty Aging

Caring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, 5001, South Australia, Australia. Electronic address:

Published: March 2025

Background: The concept of 'cognitive frailty' (CF) was first developed by an international consensus group in 2013 and defined as evidence of both physical frailty and cognitive impairment without a clinical diagnosis of AD or another dementia. CF has been associated with adverse health outcomes and early identification is vital. Difficulty in the assessment of CF however is the lack of a diagnostic gold standard.

Objectives: This review aimed to identify assessment tools used to diagnose cognitive impairment in the diagnosis of cognitive frailty, their psychometric qualities and clinical utility.

Research Design And Methods: Six databases were searched between 2013-2024. Studies were eligible if they reported a method of defining cognitive frailty, named the assessment tools, and stated cutoff values used to define cognitive impairment.

Results: In the 116 included studies, large heterogeneity was found in the tools utilised, and cutoff scores applied, to diagnose cognitive impairment in the diagnosis of cognitive frailty. This review has demonstrated that diagnosis of CF relies predominantly on the use of three cognitive assessment tools (Mini Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Clinical Dementia Rating) from a total of 22 different tools identified in the literature. For assessment of physical frailty, 11 different tools were identified, with the Fried Frailty Index and FRAIL Scale predominantly utilised.

Discussion And Implications: The variation in the tools used to identify the diagnosis of CF means there is inconsistency in reporting, potentially impacting both the understanding of the prevalence, and the appropriate direction of intervention strategies.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tjfa.2025.100033DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

assessment tools
16
cognitive frailty
16
cognitive impairment
12
cognitive
10
tools
8
frailty psychometric
8
physical frailty
8
diagnose cognitive
8
impairment diagnosis
8
diagnosis cognitive
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!