Advertisement

Small, however significant differences in the definition of physical frailty, and sarcopenia

Published:November 14, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2018.11.005
      We read the study of Calvania et al. with great interest titled “BIOmarkers associated with Sarcopenia and PHysical frailty in EldeRly pErsons” (BIOSPHERE): Rationale, design and methods” [
      • Calvani R.
      • Picca A.
      • Marina F.
      • Biancolillo A.
      • Cesari M.
      • Pesce V.
      • et al.
      The “BIOmarkers associated with Sarcopenia and PHysical frailty in EldeRly pErsons” (BIOSPHERE) study: rationale, design and methods.
      ]. In this paper, the authors highlighted that sarcopenia was a major health issue in older adults given its high prevalence, and burdensome clinical implications. In addition to this unsolved debate, the complexity of musculoskeletal ageing represented a major challenge to the identification of clinically meaningful biomarkers. This was a well-designed study which illustrated the advantages of biomarker discovery procedures in muscle ageing based on multivariate methodologies as an alternative approach to traditional single-marker strategies.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to European Journal of Internal Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Calvani R.
        • Picca A.
        • Marina F.
        • Biancolillo A.
        • Cesari M.
        • Pesce V.
        • et al.
        The “BIOmarkers associated with Sarcopenia and PHysical frailty in EldeRly pErsons” (BIOSPHERE) study: rationale, design and methods.
        Eur J Intern Med. 2018; 56: 19-25https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2018.05.001
        • Fried L.P.
        • Tangen C.M.
        • Walston J.
        • Newman A.B.
        • Hirsch C.
        • Gottdiener J.
        • et al.
        Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype.
        J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001; 56: 146-157https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/56.3.M146
        • Morley J.E.
        • Malmstrom T.K.
        • Miller D.K.
        A simple frailty questionnaire (FRAIL) predicts outcomes in middle aged African Americans.
        J Nutr Health Aging. 2012; 16: 601-608https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-012-0084-2
        • Morley J.E.
        • Vellas B.
        • Van Kan G.A.
        • Anker S.D.
        • Bauer J.M.
        • Bernabei R.
        • et al.
        Frailty consensus: a call to action.
        J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013; 14: 392-397https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2013.03.022

      Linked Article

      • In reply to “Small, however significant differences in the definition of physical frailty and sarcopenia”
        European Journal of Internal MedicineVol. 61
        • Preview
          We thank Dr. Yilmaz and colleagues [1] for their comment that allows us to further clarify a major strength of the BIOSPHERE study [2]. Many operational definitions of frailty exist, each of them describing specific aspects of the condition and capturing different risk profiles. The two constructs mentioned by the authors (i.e., the phenotype proposed by Fried et al. [3] and the FRAIL criteria designed by Morley [4]) are not gold standards for the assessment of physical frailty, simply because no reference tool is recognized in this field.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF