PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Age and Ageing· 2020Q1· Review

Prevalence of frailty in 62 countries across the world: a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-level studies

Rónán Ó’Caoimh, Duygu Sezgin, Mark O’Donovan, D. William Molloy et al.

Short summary

A meta-analysis of 240 studies from 62 countries found that frailty prevalence in adults aged 50+ is 12% using physical measures and 24% using deficit accumulation models (frailty index). Pre-frailty affects nearly half of this population.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Pooled frailty prevalence is 12% (physical measures) and 24% (frailty index) in adults aged 50+.
  • Pre-frailty affects 46-49% of the population aged 50+.
  • Frailty prevalence is higher in females (15% vs. 11% for physical measures) and increases with minimum study age.
  • Nationally representative studies suggest lower frailty prevalence (7% physical, 24% FI).

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of frailty at population level is unclear. We examined this in population-based studies, investigating sources of heterogeneity. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases were searched for observational population-level studies published between 1 January 1998 and 1 April 2020, including individuals aged ≥50 years, identified using any frailty measure. Prevalence estimates were extracted independently, assessed for bias and analysed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: In total, 240 studies reporting 265 prevalence proportions from 62 countries and territories, representing 1,755,497 participants, were included. Pooled prevalence in studies using physical frailty measures was 12% (95% CI = 11-13%; n = 178), compared with 24% (95% CI = 22-26%; n = 71) for the deficit accumulation model (those using a frailty index, FI). For pre-frailty, this was 46% (95% CI = 45-48%; n = 147) and 49% (95% CI = 46-52%; n = 29), respectively. For physical frailty, the prevalence was higher among females, 15% (95% CI = 14-17%; n = 142), than males, 11% (95% CI = 10-12%; n = 144). For studies using a FI, the prevalence was also higher in females, 29% (95% CI = 24-35%; n = 34) versus 20% (95% CI = 16-24%; n = 34), for males. These values were similar for pre-frailty. Prevalence increased according to the minimum age at study inclusion. Analysing only data from nationally representative studies gave a frailty prevalence of 7% (95% CI = 5-9%; n = 46) for physical frailty and 24% (95% CI = 22-26%; n = 44) for FIs. CONCLUSIONS: Population-level frailty prevalence varied by classification and sex. Data were heterogenous and limited, particularly from nationally representative studies making the interpretation of differences by geographic region challenging. Common methodological approaches to gathering data are required to improve the accuracy of population-level prevalence estimates. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-CRD42018105431.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Age and Ageing, 2020 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Geriatrics and Gerontology

Geriatrics and GerontologyMedicine