Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26142726›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2015

The Functionality Assessment Flowchart (FAF): a new simple and reliable method to measure performance status with a high percentage of agreement between observers.

Carlos Eduardo Paiva, Felipe Augusto Ferreira Siquelli, Henrique Amorim Santos, Marina Moreira Costa, Daniella Ramone Massaro, Domício Carvalho Lacerda, João Soares Nunes, Cristiano de Pádua Souza, Bianca Sakamoto Ribeiro Paiva

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03979755 (Pelvic Floor Dysfunction in Cancer Survivors), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03979755 completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Pelvic Floor Dysfunction in Cancer Survivors

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of Sao PauloRan2019 to 2019Enrolled144ConditionsCancer, Pelvic Floor DysfunctionArmsApplication of questionnaires
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carlos Eduardo PaivaDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Pio XII Foundation, Barretos, São Paulo, Brazil. drcarlosnap@gmail.com.
Felipe Augusto Ferreira SiquelliBarretos School of Health Sciences, Dr. Paulo Prata - FACISB, Barretos, São Paulo, Brazil. felipe_siquelli@hotmail.com.
Henrique Amorim SantosBarretos School of Health Sciences, Dr. Paulo Prata - FACISB, Barretos, São Paulo, Brazil. henriqueamorim@alunos.facisb.edu.br.
Marina Moreira CostaDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Pio XII Foundation, Barretos, São Paulo, Brazil. marina_srs@hotmail.com.
Daniella Ramone MassaroDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Pio XII Foundation, Barretos, São Paulo, Brazil. daniellaramone@gmail.com.
Domício Carvalho LacerdaDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Pio XII Foundation, Barretos, São Paulo, Brazil. domiciolacerda@hotmail.com.
João Soares NunesDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Pio XII Foundation, Barretos, São Paulo, Brazil. joaosoaresnunes@gmail.com.
Cristiano de Pádua SouzaDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Pio XII Foundation, Barretos, São Paulo, Brazil. crispeixoto10@hotmail.com.
Bianca Sakamoto Ribeiro PaivaHealth-Related Quality of Life Research Group (GPQual), Barretos Cancer Hospital, Pio XII Foundation, Barretos, São Paulo, Brazil. bsrpaiva@gmail.com.
Hospital de Câncer de Barretos · BRInstituto Barretos de Tecnologia · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerformance status (PS) assessment is an integral part of the decision-making process in cancer care. Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS are the most widely used tools. In some studies, the absolute agreement rate of these tools between observers has been moderate to low. The present study aimed to evaluate the inter-observer reliability and construct validity of the new Functionality Assessment Flowchart (FAF) and compare it with ECOG PS and KPS in a sample of cancer patients.

methodsThe patients were recruited by convenience from the waiting rooms of the Breast and Gynecology Ambulatory in a cross-sectional study. Two trained medical students (observer A) and five medical oncologists (observers B) independently rated women according to the ECOG PS, KPS and FAF. After the determining the PS scores, observer A administered the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) questionnaire to the participants. The agreements between observers A and B were investigated using the absolute agreement rate (%), weighted and unweighted kappa and Spearman's correlation test. For construct validity, the PS scores were correlated with functional and fatigue scores by performing correlation analysis.

resultsEighty women with a median age of 57 years were included in the study (86% accrual rate). Among these women, 39 (48.8%) had advanced cancer. The overall absolute agreement rate between observers was 49.4% for KPS, 67% for ECOG PS, and 78.2% for FAF. When using unweighted kappa values, the inter-observer reliability was "fair", "moderate" and "substantial" for KPS, ECOG PS and FAF, respectively. However, when using weighted kappa statistics, "substantial" agreement was observed for KPS and ECOG PS and "nearly perfect" agreement was observed for FAF. All of the PS scales correlated very well with the functional and fatigue scores.

conclusionsWe present a new instrument with moderate to high inter-observer agreement and adequate construct validity to measure PS in cancer patients.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdultBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansKarnofsky Performance StatusMiddle AgedObserver VariationPrognosisSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26142726
PMCPMC4491220
OpenAlexW1495219206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.