| Title |
Frailty Assessment in Heart Failure: an Overview of the Multi-domain Approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Heart Failure Reports, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11897-018-0373-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julee McDonagh, Caleb Ferguson, Phillip J. Newton |
| Abstract |
The study aims (1) to provide a contemporary description of frailty assessment in heart failure and (2) to provide an overview of multi-domain frailty assessment in heart failure. Frailty assessment is an important predictive measure for mortality and hospitalisation in individuals with heart failure. To date, there are no frailty assessment instruments validated for use in heart failure. This has resulted in significant heterogeneity between studies regarding the assessment of frailty. The most common frailty assessment instrument used in heart failure is the Frailty Phenotype which focuses on five physical domains of frailty; the appropriateness a purely physical measure of frailty in individuals with heart failure who frequently experience decreased exercise tolerance and shortness of breath is yet to be determined. A limited number of studies have approached frailty assessment using a multi-domain view which may be more clinically relevant in heart failure. There remains a lack of consensus regarding frailty assessment and an absence of a validated instrument in heart failure. Despite this, frailty continues to be assessed frequently, primarily for research purposes, using predominantly physical frailty measures. A more multidimensional view of frailty assessment using a multi-domain approach will likely be more sensitive to identifying at risk patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 4 | 40% |
| United States | 2 | 20% |
| Cyprus | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 5 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 83 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
| Researcher | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 14% |
| Unknown | 33 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 38 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2019.
All research outputs
#6,388,485
of 25,554,853 outputs
Outputs from Current Heart Failure Reports
#112
of 368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,012
of 451,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Heart Failure Reports
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,554,853 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 368 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 451,976 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.