A MATTER OF AGE

To the Editor: In a recent review of the first issue of the ]ournal of the American Geriatrics Society, * I pointed out the existence of a phenomenon that I thought, by now, had died a natural and welcome death. When geriatrics was still in its pediatric stage, it was, perhaps, acceptable for research relating extensively to “older” patients to examine subjects in their 50s and 60s (even in their 40s). But to read in the pages ofJAGS today, as we enter the millennium, an otherwise fine study’ (and to be fair, it is not the only such miscreant) that examines two groups aged 63 ( 2 1) years and 58 ( 2 1) years seems to me to point to a certain lack of progress in our field. It is true that the age range of the patients included those aged 80 and that the study offered a 7.3-year average follow-up. However, in the data included, most of the patients were not even in the young-old category (65-74) much less in the old-old (75 + ) age group. Perhaps 50 years ago,]AGS could allow itself to publish research on subjects in middle age or the young-old (and I must admit that my own personal sensitivities to this issue might be because I am about to enter my sixth decade). But, given the development of our field, I believe that our present research should concentrate primarily, if not exclusively, on frail older people, most of whom are in the old-old age category. Others will investigate the middle-aged, but only geriatricians will focus their research efforts primarily on the very old. It is my contention that journals such as JAGS should reflect this need.