↓ Skip to main content

Geriatric screening tools are of limited value to predict decline in functional status and quality of life: results of a cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Geriatric screening tools are of limited value to predict decline in functional status and quality of life: results of a cohort study
Published in
BMC Primary Care, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12875-015-0241-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Deckx, Marjan van den Akker, Liesbeth Daniels, Eric T De Jonge, Paul Bulens, Vivianne CG Tjan-Heijnen, Doris L van Abbema, Frank Buntinx

Abstract

Geriatric screening tools are increasingly implemented in daily practice, especially in the oncology setting, but also in primary care in some countries such as the Netherlands. Nonetheless, validation of these tools regarding their ability to predict relevant outcomes is lacking. In this study we evaluate if geriatric screening tools predict decline in functional status and quality of life after one year, in a population of older cancer patients and an older primary care population without cancer with a life expectancy of at least six months. Older cancer patients and a general older primary care population without a history of cancer (≥70 years) were included in an on-going prospective cohort study. Data were collected at baseline and after one-year follow-up. Functional decline was based on the Katz Index and Lawton IADL-scale and was defined as deterioration on one or more domains. Decline in quality of life was measured using the global health related subscale of the EORTC QLQ-C30, and was defined as a decline ≥10 points. The selected geriatric screening tools were the abbreviated Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, Groningen Frailty Indicator, Vulnerable Elders Survey-13, and G8. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and odds ratios to assess if normal versus abnormal scores predict functional decline and decline in quality of life. One-year follow-up data were available for 134 older cancer patients and 220 persons without cancer. Abnormal scores of all screening tools were significantly associated with functional decline. However, this was only true for older persons without cancer, and only in univariate analyses. For functional decline, sensitivity ranged from 54% to 71% and specificity from 33% to 66%. For decline in quality of life, sensitivity ranged from 40% to 67% and specificity from 37% to 54%. In older persons with a relatively good prognosis, geriatric screening tools are of limited use in identifying persons at risk for decline in functional status or quality of life after one year. Hence, a geriatric screening tool cannot be relied on in isolation, but they do provide very valuable information and may prompt physicians to also consider different aspects of functioning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 99 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 17 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 24 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 March 2015.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,714
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,491
of 271,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#30
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 271,802 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.