Skip Navigation

E-LETTERS

Think of E-letters as electronic letters to the editor. They provide an opportunity for readers to respond to any of the articles in the journal. E-letters offer an opportunity for feedback, debate and the promotion of ideas for future articles.

Readers should note that the publication of an E-letter does not imply approval or recommendation of its contents by British Geriatrics Society.

To SUBMIT an E-letter responding to a particular article: Click on the link 'E-letters: Submit a response' in the box at the top right hand corner of the article.

To READ E-letters responding to a particular article: Click on the link 'E-letters: View responses' in the box at the top right hand corner of the article.

All E-letters published in the past 3 days are shown below. You can also read responses published in the last 4, 7, 14, 21, 42, 84 days.


E-letters published in the past 3 days:

2 E-letters published for 2 different articles.

Articles    E-letters
Jump to eLetters for citation
Research Paper:
C-reactive protein, severity of pneumonia and mortality in elderly, hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia
Thiem et al. (1 November 2009) [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]
Jump to eLetter Assessment and management of community-acquired pneumonia in the older people
Phyo K Myint, et al.   (23 November 2009)
 Read every E-letter to this article

Jump to eLetters for citation
Research Letter:
Practicality, validity and sensitivity to change of fear of falling self-report in hospitalised elderly—a comparison of four instruments
Denkinger et al. (1 January 2009) [Full text] [PDF]
Jump to eLetter The Problem of Missing Values
Michael D Denkinger   (23 November 2009)
 Read every E-letter to this article
Research Paper:
C-reactive protein, severity of pneumonia and mortality in elderly, hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia
Thiem et al. (1 November 2009) [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]
C-reactive protein, severity of pneumonia and mortality in elderly, hospitalised...
Assessment and management of community-acquired pneumonia in the older people
23 November 2009
 Next eLetter Top
Phyo K Myint,
Senior Lecturer
School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ,
University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK

Send e-letter to journal:
Re: Assessment and management of community-acquired pneumonia in the older people

SIR,

I read Thiem et al [1] with interest. I am very pleased to see an article devoted to this important medical condition which is prevalent in older people and associated with high mortality. We have also made recent attempts to find a better severity scoring index for older people who are admitted with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The rationale behind these attempts was that as Thiem and colleagues confirmed our previous report [2], both sensitivity and specificity of CURB-65, currently recommended criteria by the British Thoracic Society in the UK, is rather low in correctly identifying older patients who are likely to die within 30 days of CAP. Therefore, a substantial proportion of older people who are initially identified as non-severe pneumonia by CURB-65 are also at risk of dying from CAP.

There are several weak links in the CURB-65 as we pointed out previously [2]. Simple modification of CURB-65 appears to better identify severe pneumonia in older people [3], albeit remains controversial [4]. We suggested recently the usefulness of the shock index, pulse rate divided by systolic blood pressure, and adjusted shock index, temperature adjusted pulse rate divided by systolic blood pressure, in the severity assessment of CAP [5]. It is possible that shock index, which considers both pulse rate and systolic blood pressure will better perform than blood pressure criterion in CAP severity assessment because the use of the latter is questionable in older people [2].

While I agree with the authors [1] that further investigations of the role of novel markers in the severity assessment of CAP should be encouraged, it may also be possible to identify other simple clinical parameters that are associated with mortality in the older people with pneumonia. These potentially simpler and cheaper alternative means in better identification of severe pneumonia should not be neglected. In my opinion, therefore, it is important to explore the determinants of poor outcomes such as mortality, increased length of stay and ITU admission in CAP, in those who are initially identified as non-severe pneumonia and also to examine specific determinants of these poor outcomes in different age categories, younger (<65 years), older (65-84 years) and the oldest olds (>85 years) to cover so called “blind spot” in current severity assessment scales. Larger and well designed pneumonia studies as multicentre collaboration among the clinicians with interest in CAP should be the way forward.

Competing interest None

Dr Phyo Kyaw Myint MRCP MD Clinical Senior Lecturer and Honorary Consultant Physician School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, NR4 7TJ, UK Academic Department of Medicine for the Eldery, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital Norwich, Norfolk, NR4 7UY, UK Tel: + 44 (0) 1603 286286 Fax: +44 (0) 1603 286428 Email: phyo.k.myint@uea.ac.uk

References [1] Thiem U, Niklaus D, Sehlhoff B, Stückle C, Heppner HJ, Endres HG, Pientka L. C-reactive protein, severity of pneumonia and mortality in elderly, hospitalised patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Age Ageing. 2009;38(6):693-7.

[2] Myint PK, Kamath AV, Vowler SL, Maisey DN, Harrison BD. The CURB (confusion, urea, respiratory rate and blood pressure) criteria in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in hospitalised elderly patients aged 65 years and over: a prospective observational cohort study. Age Ageing. 2005;34(1):75-7.

[3] Myint PK, Kamath AV, Vowler SL, Harrison BD. Simple modification of CURB-65 better identifies patients including the elderly with severe CAP. Thorax. 2007;62(11):1015-6;

[4] Myint PK, Sankaran P, Musonda P, Subramanian DN, Ruffell H, Smith AC, Prentice P, Tariq SM, Kamath AV.Performance of CURB-65 and CURB-age in community-acquired pneumonia. Int J Clin Pract. 2009;63(9):1345-50.

[5] Myint PK, Bhaniani A, Bradshaw SM, Alobeidi F, Tariq SM. Usefulness of shock index and adjusted shock index in the severity assessment of community-acquired pneumonia. Respiration. 2009;77(4):468-9.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared

Research Letter:
Practicality, validity and sensitivity to change of fear of falling self-report in hospitalised elderly—a comparison of four instruments
Denkinger et al. (1 January 2009) [Full text] [PDF]
Practicality, validity and sensitivity to change of fear of falling self-report...
The Problem of Missing Values
23 November 2009
Previous eLetter  Top
Michael D Denkinger,
physician and postdoctoral researcher
Bethesda Geriatric Clinic, Zollernring 26, 89073 Ulm

Send e-letter to journal:
Re: The Problem of Missing Values

Sir, in their comment on our article [1] Kempen and Zijlstra suggested not to develop adapted versions of the FES-I to maintain standardisation and comparability. The authors state that by adding the following sentence (“… If you currently do not do the activity, please answer to show whether you think you would be concerned about falling IF you did the activity. …”[2,3]) they could possibly overcome the problem that persons might currently not be able to perform a certain activity.

We agree that standardisation is important for comparing results across the whole research community and, like with the Mini Mental State Exam, it would be desirable for clinicians and researchers to immediately grasp the meaning of a score in terms of the clinical phenotype.

However, we did strictly adhere to the instructions and we always (sometimes repeatedly) indicated to the patient that he or she should try to answer the question "if they did the activity". Still, in this physically and cognitively frail population with low falls-related self efficacy, we experienced about 14 percent of missings (more than three questions were not answered). This was mostly because patients could not transfer their current situation - in hospital - to some of the questions (walking on an uneven surface, vacuuming the floor, etc.). For different analyses, we were able to substitute some of these missing values by the results of the short FES-I and by repeating the test shortly before discharge. Then, for some of the patients, it was easier to answer the questions because they already had in mind how activities of daily living would be once they were back home.

Therefore, in very frail elderly populations, it might be useful to administer the short FES-I or, if falls-related self efficacy is in the focus of research, consider different approaches alongside the FES-I.

Still, we believe that the FES-I is a very powerful tool that we are still using. We want to thank Kempen and colleagues for their ongoing work and suggestions regarding our paper.

[1]. Denkinger MD, IGL W, Coll-Planas L, Nikolaus T, Bailer S, Bader A, Jamour M. Age Ageing 2009; 38: 108-12. [2]. Kempen GIJM, Todd C, Haastregt JCM van, Zijlstra GAR, Beyer N, Freiberger E, Hauer K, Piot-Ziegler C, Yardley L. Cross-cultural validation of the Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I) in older people: Results from Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom were satisfactory. Disabil Rehabil 2007; 29: 155-62. [3]. Kempen GIJM, Yardley L, Haastregt JCM van, Zijlstra GAR, Beyer N, Hauer K, Todd C. The Short FES-I: a shortened version of the Falls Efficacy Scale-International

Conflict of Interest:

None declared