Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37268891›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2023

How frail is frail in oncology studies? A scoping review.

James A Fletcher, Benignus Logan, Natasha Reid, Emily H Gordon, Rahul Ladwa, Ruth E Hubbard

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The association between PMBMC public health · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Exploring Frailty in the Intersection of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer in Older People.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
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

6 authors.

James A FletcherDivision of Cancer Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, 199 Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia. james.fletcher@uq.edu.au.
Benignus LoganFaculty of Medicine, Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, 199 Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.
Natasha ReidFaculty of Medicine, Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, 199 Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.
Emily H GordonFaculty of Medicine, Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, 199 Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.
Rahul LadwaDivision of Cancer Services, Princess Alexandra Hospital, 199 Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.
Ruth E HubbardFaculty of Medicine, Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, 199 Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe frailty index (FI) is one way in which frailty can be quantified. While it is measured as a continuous variable, various cut-off points have been used to categorise older adults as frail or non-frail, and these have largely been validated in the acute care or community settings for older adults without cancer. This review aimed to explore which FI categories have been applied to older adults with cancer and to determine why these categories were selected by study authors.

methodsThis scoping review searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases for studies which measured and categorised an FI in adults with cancer. Of the 1994 screened, 41 were eligible for inclusion. Data including oncological setting, FI categories, and the references or rationale for categorisation were extracted and analysed.

resultsThe FI score used to categorise participants as frail ranged from 0.06 to 0.35, with 0.35 being the most frequently used, followed by 0.25 and 0.20. The rationale for FI categories was provided in most studies but was not always relevant. Three of the included studies using an FI > 0.35 to define frailty were frequently referenced as the rationale for subsequent studies, however, the original rationale for this categorisation was unclear. Few studies sought to determine or validate optimum FI categorises in this population.

conclusionThere is significant variability in how studies have categorised the FI in older adults with cancer. An FI ≥ 0.35 to categorise frailty was used most frequently, however an FI in this range has often represented at least moderate to severe frailty in other highly-cited studies. These findings contrast with a scoping review of highly-cited studies categorising FI in older adults without cancer, where an FI ≥ 0.25 was most common. Maintaining the FI as a continuous variable is likely to be beneficial until further validation studies determine optimum FI categories in this population. Differences in how the FI has been categorised, and indeed how older adults have been labelled as 'frail', limits our ability to synthesise results and to understand the impact of frailty in cancer care.

Indexed as

FrailtyAgedFrail ElderlyGeriatric AssessmentHumansRisk FactorsDeficit accumulationFrail elderlyFrailtyFrailty indexGeriatric assessmentGeriatric oncology

Identifiers

PMID37268891
PMCPMC10236730

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.