ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2021
Validity and reliability of the G8 screening test in older non-cancer patients.
Article in European geriatric medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distribution of Geriatric 8 screening tool scores in elderly and non-elderly patients with cancer.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Frailty Screening is Associated with Hospitalization and Decline in Quality of Life and Functional Status in Older Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Journal of Crohn's & colitis · 2024Article
- Additional Value of Mini-Cog© in Urogeriatric Patients Concurrently Screened by G8 Scores.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Nutrition risk assessed by Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 is associated with in-hospital mortality in older patients with COVID-19.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2022Article
- Comparison of G8 and ISAR Screening Results in Geriatric Urology.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a time-consuming approach that requires a special team and a screening test, whereas the G8 screening test is a practical and validated test for screening cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the G8 test in older patients without cancer and to investigate its concordance with CGA in an outpatient clinic.
methodsTwo hundred older patients were included in the study. CGA and G8 tests were performed, and the concordance between them was evaluated for scale validity using Spearman correlation coefficients (r) and kappa analyses. Patients who obtained scores lower than the predefined cutoff values in at least one of the CGA tests were considered to have an abnormal CGA. Inter-rater and intra-rater concordance were assessed for reliability.
resultsOf the 200 patients, 57.4% were female, and the median age was 73 (63-93) years. There was a strong concordance between the CGA and G8 screening test (kappa: 0.630; p < 0.001). Inter-rater and intra-rater concordance in the reliability assessments were high (kappa: 0.886; kappa: 875; p < 0.001, respectively), and inter- and intra-clinician assessments of the G8 scores revealed significant correlations (r = 0.962 and r = 0.976, respectively; p < 0.001).
conclusionThe G8 screening test is a valid and reliable tool for older adults without malignancy. It is a quick and practical test for physicians who frequently admit older patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33000425What OpenQuestion holds
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.