ArticleBMC geriatrics2023
Comparison of two frailty screening tools in older patients with colorectal cancer.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality of life management capability in elderly frail patients with colorectal cancer: a latent profile analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Global frailty screening tools: Review and application of frailty screening tools from 2001 to 2023.Intractable & rare diseases research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGeriatric assessment (GA) is widely used to detect vulnerability in older patients. As this process is time-consuming, prescreening tools have been developed to identify patients at risk for frailty. We aimed to assess whether the Geriatric 8 (G8) or the Korean Cancer Study Group Geriatric Score (KG-7) shows better performance in identifying patients who are in need of full GA. MATERIALS AND
methodsA consecutive series of patients aged ≥ 60 years with colorectal cancer were included. The sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for the G8 and the KG-7 using the results of GA as the reference standard. ROC(Receiver Operating Characteristic) was used to evaluate the accuracy of the G8 and the KG-7.
resultsOne hundred four patients were enrolled. A total of 40.4% of patients were frail according to GA, and 42.3% and 50.0% of patients were frail based on the G8 and the KG-7, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the G8 were 90.5% (95% CI: 77.4-97.3%) and 90.3% (95% CI: 80.1-96.4%), respectively. For the KG-7, the sensitivity and specificity were 83.3% (95% CI: 68.6-93.0%) and 72.6% (95% CI: 59.8-83.1%), respectively. Compared to the KG-7, the G8 had a higher predictive accuracy (AUC: (95% CI): 0.90 (0.83-0.95) vs. 0.78 (0.69-0.85); p < 0.01). By applying the G8 and the KG-7, 60 and 52 patients would not need a GA assessment, respectively.
conclusionBoth the G8 and the KG-7 showed a great ability to detect frailty in older patients with colorectal cancer. In this population, compared to the KG-7, the G8 had a better performance in identifying those in need of a full Geriatric Assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.