ArticleDiscover oncology2024
Selection determines therapeutic effects: a retrospective analysis of the application of different frailty tools in elderly patients with multiple myeloma.
Article in Discover oncology, 2024. 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.
- Isatuximab plus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: a frailty subgroup analysis of the IMROZ trial.Haematologica · 2025Trial
- Advances in the application of frailty scoring in the diagnosis and management of elderly patients with multiple myeloma (Review).Oncology reports · 2026Review
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
objectiveThe aim was to explore the effectiveness of the International Myeloma Working Group Frailty Index (IMWG-FI), Mayo Score, UK Myeloma Research Alliance Risk Profile (MRP), and Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome (IFM) simplified frailty scale for classifying frailty in elderly multiple myeloma (MM) patients and compare the validity of different frailty tools.
methodsEighty-four newly diagnosed MM patients aged ≥ 60 years in HeBei University Hospital were evaluated by the IMWG-FI, Mayo score, MRP score and IFM scale, and consistency and survival analyses were performed using Cohen's kappa coefficients and the Kaplan‒Meier method, respectively.
resultsA total of 64 patients (76.2%) were identified as frail by at least one frailty tool; 14 (21.9%) were identified as frail by all four tools, and although moderate concordance was achieved between the IMWG-FI and MRP and the Mayo Score (0.432-0.474, P < 0.001), the concordance among the four assessment tools was relatively low (Cohen's kappa 0.218-0.474). The median overall survival (OS, P = 0.006, 0.025, and 0.028) and progression-free survival (PFS, P = 0.002, 0.006, and 0.03) of patients in the frail group and the nonfrail group identified by the IMWG-FI, Mayo score, and MRP were significantly different, while the median OS (P = 0.139) and PFS (P = 0.167) were not significantly different for the frail patients identified by the different frailty assessment tools.
conclusionIn this study, the consistency of the different frailty assessment tools was low, whereas that between the MRP and IMWG-FI was high. Therefore, combining IMWG-FI and MRP may reduce assessment subjectivity and improve frailty identification.
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.