نبذة مختصرة : Frailty is a key concept in geriatric care; yet its definition and assessment remain debated. Since the early 2000s, two main models have emerged: the Fried frailty phenotype, focusing on physical deficits, and the Mitnitski frailty index, which incorporates broader health factors. These divergent approaches have led to over 50 frailty instruments, reflecting the absence of a unified framework. This review explores the content, weighting, and scoring methods of frailty instruments, identifying potential concerns derived from this. This review exposes the overlap of frailty with other constructs including function, disability, morbidity, and sarcopenia. Many instruments lack content validity, and detect highly heterogeneous samples within and between scales, all labeled under the “frail” tag. This poses challenges to interpreting instrument responsiveness. In addition, frailty should not be considered a clinical entity with a unique etiology. This review discusses how the broad nature of frailty conflicts with modern paradigms of individualization and precision. They may be useful in primary care, but lack the specificity for secondary care evaluations. This article also discusses how the predictive validity of frailty should be interpreted with caution. Finally, we summarize our findings and propose a new definition of frailty, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the construct. The identified inconsistencies should serve as a guide for refining the concept of frailty, both in research and in its application to geriatric care.
Processing Request
No Comments.