The aim of the present study was to compare the performance of the interferon (IFN)-γ tests (QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-G-IT) and T-SPOT®.TB) with the tuberculin skin test (TST) in diagnosing tuberculosis (TB) infection in children, and to analyse discordant results.This was a prospective study including 98 children from contact-tracing studies and 68 children with TST indurations ≥5 mm recruited during public health screenings.Positive IFN-γ tests results were associated with risk of exposure (p<0.0001). T-SPOT.TBwas positive in 11 (78.6%) out of 14 cases with active TB and QFT-G-IT in nine (64.3%) out of 14 cases. Sensitised T-cells againstMycobacterium aviumwere detected in six out of 12 children not vaccinated with bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG), a TST induration 5–9 mm in diameter and both IFN-γ tests negative. In concordant IFN-γ tests results, a positive correlation was found (p = 0.0001) between the number of responding cells and the amount of IFN-γ released. However, in discordant IFN-γ tests results this correlation was negative (p = 0.371): an increase in the number of spot-forming cells correlated with a decrease in the amount of IFN-γ released.The use of IFN-γ tests is helpful for the diagnosis of TB infection, avoiding cross-reactions with BCG immunisation and nontuberculous mycobacterial infections. The analysis of highly discordant results requires further investigation to elucidate possible clinical implications.

The Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) is one of the most prominent multidimensional frailty assessment instruments. This review aimed to critically appraise and summarise its measurement properties. Reports were eligible if they included results of studies aimed at developing the TFI or evaluating its measurement properties. We performed a literature search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from their inception until December 8, 2021. We also searched grey literature databases. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the "COSMIN Risk of Bias". The measurement properties were evaluated using specific criteria. We graded the quality of the evidence using a GRADE approach. Sixty-three studies were included. We found moderate sufficient evidence for TFI content validity, although it is still insufficient for the comprehensiveness of its items. TFI construct validity was based on sufficient evidence from two studies of its structural validity as well as multiple hypothesis-testing for construct validity studies with inconsistent results. We did not find any studies that assessed cross-cultural validity. Only one of TFI's three dimensions showed sufficient evidence for the internal consistency of its scores, and results in test-retest reliability were inconsistent. The TFI showed high sufficient concurrent validity with the comprehensive geriatric assessment. We identified several studies assessing its predictive validity for adverse frailty-related outcomes, although most of the evidence from these studies was insufficient. We did not find any studies that assessed the responsiveness of TFI scores. The TFI had evidence gaps in several relevant measurement properties. Further research is needed to strengthen its usefulness as a clinical decision-making tool.

The study aimed to assess the reliability of the scores, evidence of validity, and feasibility of the Frail-VIG index. A validation study mixing hospitalized and community-dwelling older people was designed. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the inter-rater agreement and the reliability. The construct validity of the Frail-VIG index with respect to the Frailty Phenotype (FP) was evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). Convergent validity with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficients. The feasibility was evaluated by calculating the average time required to administer the Frail-VIG index and the percentage of unanswered responses. A sample of 527 older people (mean age of 81.61, 56.2% female) was included. The inter-rater agreement and test–retest reliability were very strong: 0.941 (95% CI, 0.890 to 0.969) and 0.976 (95% CI, 0.958 to 0.986), respectively. Results indicated adequate convergent validity of the Frail-VIG index with respect to the FP, AUC-ROC 0.704 (95% CI, 0.622 to 0.786), and a moderate to strong positive correlation between the Frail-VIG index and CFS (r = 0.635, 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.71). The Frail-VIG index administration required an average of 5.01 min, with only 0.34% of unanswered responses. The Frail-VIG index is a reliable, feasible, and valid instrument to assess the degree of frailty in hospitalized and community-dwelling older people.

Background: The multidimensional assessment of frailty allows stratifying it into degrees; however, there is still heterogeneity in the characteristics of people in each stratum. The aim of this study was to identify frailty profiles of older people users of a home-based primary care service. Methods: We carried out an observational study from January 2018 to January 2021. Participants were all people cared for a home-based primary care service. We performed a cluster analysis by applying a k-means clustering technique. Cluster labeling was determined with the 22 variables of the Frail-VIG index, age, and sex. We computed multiple indexes to assess the optimal number of clusters, and this was selected based on a clinical assessment of the best options. Results: Four hundred and twelve participants were clustered into six profiles. Three of these profiles corresponded to a moderate frailty degree, two to a severe frailty degree and one to a mild frailty degree. In addition, almost 75% of the participants were clustered into three profiles which corresponded to mild and moderate degree of frailty. Conclusions: Different profiles were found within the same degree of frailty. Knowledge of these profiles can be useful in developing strategies tailored to these differentiated care needs.

Background: Missed nursing care is defined as care that is delayed, partially completed, or not completed at all. The scenario created by the COVID‐19 pandemic may have influenced multifactorial determinants related to the care environment, nursing processes, internal processes, and decision‐making processes, increasing missed nursing care. Aim: This scoping review aimed to establish the quantity and type of research undertaken on missed nursing care during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods: This review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, two national and regional databases, two dissertations and theses databases, a gray literature database, two study registers, and a search engine from November 1, 2019, to March 23, 2023. We included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed studies carried out in all healthcare settings that examined missed nursing care during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Language restrictions were not applied. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction. Disagreements between the reviewers were resolved through discussion or with an additional reviewer. Results: We included 25 studies with different designs, the most common being acute care cross‐sectional survey designs. Studies focused on determining the frequency and reasons for missed nursing care and its influence on nurses and organizational outcomes. Linking Evidence to Action: Missed nursing care studies during the COVID‐19 pandemic were essentially nurses‐based prevalence surveys. There is an urgent need to advance the design and development of longitudinal and intervention studies, as well as to broaden the focus of research beyond acute care. Further research is needed to determine the impact of missed nursing care on nursing‐sensitive outcomes and from the patient's perspective.