We have located links that may give you full text access.
Korean version of the Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses and Loss of weight questionnaire versus the Modified Kihon Checklist for Frailty Screening in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: The Aging Study of PyeongChang Rural Area.
Geriatrics & Gerontology International 2017 November
AIM: To compare the five-item Korean version of the Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Illnesses and Loss of weight (K-FRAIL) questionnaire versus the 28-item Kihon + 3 index (the 25-item original Kihon checklist plus multimorbidity, sensory impairment, and Timed Up and Go test) in identifying prefrail or frail older adults.
METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional analysis of 212 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 76 years; 41% male) in PyeongChang County, Korea. We compared the C statistic, sensitivity and specificity of the K-FRAIL questionnaire (range 0-5; cut-point ≥1) versus the Kihon + 3 index (range 0-31; cut-point ≥4) and the original Kihon checklist (range 0-25; cut-point ≥4) in identifying prefrail or frail individuals according to the Cardiovascular Health Study criteria.
RESULTS: According to the Cardiovascular Health Study criteria, 150 individuals (70.8%) were prefrail or frail. The C statistic of the K-FRAIL questionnaire in identifying prefrail or frail individuals was lower than that of the Kihon + 3 index (0.77 vs 0.85; P = 0.022) or that of the original Kihon checklist (0.77 vs 0.84; P = 0.046). However, at the a priori cut-points, the K-FRAIL questionnaire had sensitivity (0.79 vs 0.85; P = 0.095) and specificity (0.69 vs 0.69; P = 1.000) that were not significantly different from those of the Kihon + 3 index. However, the K-FRAIL questionnaire was more sensitive (0.79 vs 0.69; P = 0.016), but less specific (0.69 vs 0.86, p = 0.018) than the original Kihon checklist.
CONCLUSIONS: For frailty screening in community-dwelling older adults, the simple K-FRAIL questionnaire might not be inferior to the current standard of the Kihon + 3 index, and it might be more sensitive and less specific than the original Kihon checklist. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2017; 17: 2046-2052.
METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional analysis of 212 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 76 years; 41% male) in PyeongChang County, Korea. We compared the C statistic, sensitivity and specificity of the K-FRAIL questionnaire (range 0-5; cut-point ≥1) versus the Kihon + 3 index (range 0-31; cut-point ≥4) and the original Kihon checklist (range 0-25; cut-point ≥4) in identifying prefrail or frail individuals according to the Cardiovascular Health Study criteria.
RESULTS: According to the Cardiovascular Health Study criteria, 150 individuals (70.8%) were prefrail or frail. The C statistic of the K-FRAIL questionnaire in identifying prefrail or frail individuals was lower than that of the Kihon + 3 index (0.77 vs 0.85; P = 0.022) or that of the original Kihon checklist (0.77 vs 0.84; P = 0.046). However, at the a priori cut-points, the K-FRAIL questionnaire had sensitivity (0.79 vs 0.85; P = 0.095) and specificity (0.69 vs 0.69; P = 1.000) that were not significantly different from those of the Kihon + 3 index. However, the K-FRAIL questionnaire was more sensitive (0.79 vs 0.69; P = 0.016), but less specific (0.69 vs 0.86, p = 0.018) than the original Kihon checklist.
CONCLUSIONS: For frailty screening in community-dwelling older adults, the simple K-FRAIL questionnaire might not be inferior to the current standard of the Kihon + 3 index, and it might be more sensitive and less specific than the original Kihon checklist. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2017; 17: 2046-2052.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app