Validation of a Brief Form of the Self-Administered Multidimensional Prognostic Index: The SELFY-BRIEF-MPI Project
Résumé fourni par la source
In clinical practice, self-administered and brief tools to promptly identify older people at risk of frailty are required. The Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI), derived from the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) seems reliable enough to serve this purpose, but despite the several versions developed over the past 15 years, it lacks a self-administered and brief version. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the agreement between an abbreviated form of the SELFY-MPI (i.e., SELFY-BRIEF-MPI) and the standard version of the MPI. Four Italian hospitals consecutively enrolled outpatients and inpatients >65 years. The sample included 105 participants (mean age = 78.8 years, 53.3% females). Overall, the two versions showed non-statistically significant differences (Standard-MPI 0.42 ± 0.19 vs.. SELFY-BRIEF-MPI 0.41 ± 0.18; p = 0.104) and a very strong correlation (R = 0.86, p < 0.001). The Bland–Altman Plot revealed that only 5/105 measurements (4.76%) were outside the limits of agreement. The accuracy of the SELFY-BRIEF-MPI in identifying frail people (defined as a Standard-MPI > 0.66) was optimal (area under the curve, AUC = 0.90, p < 0.001). To predict multidimensional frailty, a SELFY-BRIEF-MPI score of 0.60 exhibited the greatest sensitivity/specificity ratio. In conclusion, the SELFY-BRIEF-MPI reported a good agreement with the standard version of the MPI, indicating its application in the screening of multidimensional frailty among older people.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Validation of a Brief Form of the Self-Administered Multidimensional Prognostic Index: The SELFY-BRIEF-MPI Project
- Date Crossref
- 18/09/2023
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.