Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35550341›Full record

ArticleBiomedical journal2022

Performance of two frailty screening tools among patients with cancer in Taiwan.

Shih-Ying Chen, Wen-Chi Chou, Yung-Chang Lin, Ngan-Ming Tsang, Kuo-Chen Liao, Chung-Hao Lin, Jr-Rung Lin, Ya-Wen Ho, Woung-Ru Tang

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Predicting 1-year mortality in older cancer patients: performance of G8, SPPB, and IF-VIG in the PROFIT Study.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Shih-Ying ChenSchool of Nursing, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Wen-Chi ChouCollege of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Department of Hematology-Oncology and Cancer Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Yung-Chang LinCollege of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Department of Hematology-Oncology and Cancer Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Ngan-Ming TsangCollege of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Department of Radiation Oncology and Cancer Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Kuo-Chen LiaoCollege of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Department of General Medicine and Geriatric, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Chung-Hao LinCollege of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Department of General Medicine and Geriatric, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Jr-Rung LinCollege of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Clinical Informatics and Medical Statistics Research Center, Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, Chang Gung University at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Ya-Wen HoSchool of Nursing, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Woung-Ru TangSchool of Nursing, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan; Department of Nephrology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan. Electronic address: wtang@mail.cgu.edu.tw.
Chang Gung University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is the gold standard for detecting frailty in elderly patients with cancer. Since CGA is time- and resource-consuming, many alternative frailty screening tools have been developed; however, it remains unknown whether these tools are suitable for older and adult patients with cancer. Therefore, we used the data collected for a large longitudinal study to compare the diagnostic performances of two frailty screening tools (Geriatric 8 [G8] and Flemish version of the Triage Risk Screening Tool [fTRST]) to identify frailty risk profile among patients with cancer.

methodsPatients aged ≥20 years with newly diagnosed cancer were enrolled. Frailty screening with G8, fTRST, and CGA were performed before anti-cancer treatment. Diagnostic characteristics obtained using G8 and fTRST were analyzed by C-index, and the validity of G8 and fTRST was also determined.

results40.9% of the 755 patients with cancer displayed frailty on CGA. Both G8 and fTRST showed high sensitivity (80.6-88.4%) and negative predictive value (81.0-81.2%). The C-index of G8 was higher than that of fTRST (0.77 vs 0.71, p = .01). Moreover, the best G8 and fTRST cut-off points were ≤13 and ≥ 2, respectively. The validities of G8 and fTRST were also confirmed; however, frailty age differences were not observed in our study.

conclusionFrailty is a common problem for patients with cancer, and routine frailty screening is essential for both older and adult patients. G8 and fTRST are simple and useful frailty screening tools, while G8 is more suitable than fTRST for Taiwanese patients with cancer.

Indexed as

FrailtyNeoplasmsAgedEarly Detection of CancerGeriatric AssessmentHumansLongitudinal StudiesTaiwanCancerFrailtyPerformanceScreening tools

Identifiers

PMID35550341
PMCPMC9250070
OpenAlexW3133756504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.