Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37067702›Full record

ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2023

Item analysis of G8 screening in uro-oncologic geriatric patients.

J Bouzan, S Nellas, B Stoilkov, P Willschrei, M Horstmann

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International urology and nephrology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J BouzanDepartment of Urology, Helios Hospital St. Josefshospital, Krefeld Uerdingen, Kurfuerstenstr. 69, 47829, Krefeld, Germany.
S NellasDepartment of Urology, Helios Hospital St. Josefshospital, Krefeld Uerdingen, Kurfuerstenstr. 69, 47829, Krefeld, Germany.
B StoilkovDepartment of Urology, Helios Hospital St. Josefshospital, Krefeld Uerdingen, Kurfuerstenstr. 69, 47829, Krefeld, Germany.
P WillschreiDepartment of Geriatrics, Evang. Hospital Essen-Steele, Am Deimelsberg 34, 45276, Essen, Germany.
M HorstmannDepartment of Urology, Helios Hospital St. Josefshospital, Krefeld Uerdingen, Kurfuerstenstr. 69, 47829, Krefeld, Germany. marcushorstmann@gmx.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5420-754X
Helios Klinikum Krefeld · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION/

backgroundThe G8 score is a widespread screening tool for geriatric frailty in oncology. The aim of this study was to evaluate the scores and relevance of G8 items in a standard screening of geriatric patients with uro-oncologic diseases to better understand the results of the assessment.

methodsEighty-two consecutive uro-oncologic geriatric patients aged 75 years and older were evaluated. All patients underwent a G8 screening that consisted of 8 items. Patients with a G8 score above 14 were considered geriatric "fit", while others were considered to be "frail". Overall results and single item scores were evaluated. Clinical data were gathered from patients' charts.

resultsThe mean age of the patients was 82 years (min. 75-max. 102). In 36 of the patients, the G8 score indicated "no-frailty", and in 46 patients, the G8 score indicated "frailty". The mean G8 score was 12.9 (min 4-max 17 pts). Item analysis revealed that points were most often lost in items H (polypharmacy), P (comparison of health status to peers) and Age. Fifty-nine, 56 and 52 patients lost points on item Age, item H and item P, respectively. In contrast, the majority of patients reached the maximum score for nutritional items [i.e., items A (food intake), B (weight loss) and F (body mass index (BMI))]. For item A, 73 patients reached the maximum score; for item B, 62 patients reached the maximum score; and for item F, 72 patients reached the maximum score. There were no differences in this distribution pattern when comparing tumour entities, sex, and patients with local vs. metastatic disease.

conclusionThe present study revealed a high percentage of suspicious test results. Potential reasons for these findings include the low threshold of the G8 overall score and the fact that in some items, points were easily lost. Modifications of the test should be considered.

Indexed as

FrailtyNeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overGeriatric AssessmentHealth StatusHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesG8 scoreGeriatric assessmentGeriatric screeningGeriatric urologic oncologyItem analysisNutrition

Identifiers

PMID37067702
PMCPMC10185629
OpenAlexW4366083575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.