Table 5.
Comparison of frailty scores
| Frailty score | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Single-item objective measures (5-m walk; get up and go) | • Easy to administer | • Lacks both sensitivity and specificity of more complex scales |
| • Minimal training required to administer | • Only tests physical frailty | |
| • Requires patient be able to participate in test | ||
| Modified Physical Performance Test | • Objective measure of physical abilities | • Time to administer |
| • Tests fine and gross motor abilities | • Requries training to administer | |
| • Only measures physical frailty | ||
| • Patient must be able to participate in tasks | ||
| CSHA Frailty Index | • Comprehensive examination of frailty using 70 items | • Large number of items |
| • Time consuming to administer | ||
| • Purely subjective | ||
| CSHA Clinical Frailty Score | • Easily administrated as part of standard patient encounter | • Purely subjective |
| • May be used retrospectively if the data on functional status is collected | • Clinical opinion scale | |
| Phenotype of Frailty | • Short (requires 10–15 min to conduct) | • Requires more than a simple questionnaire |
| • Subjective and objective measurements | • Need to know the norms in order to score the scale | |
| FRAIL scale | • Created as a screening test | • Is a screening test; therefore, further confirmatory tests would need to be done |
| Edmonton Frail Scale | • Combination of objective and subjective measures | • Time to administer |
| • Includes cognition | • Requires training to administer | |
| Trauma-Specific Frailty Index | • Only 15 variables | • Requires an albumin level |
| • Fast and easy to administer | • Largely subjective | |
| •Minimal training needed to administer | • Generalizability as it was designed for trauma patients |