ArticleClinical interventions in aging2024
Sensitivity and Specificity of Three Measures of Intrinsic Capacity in Older People Aged 80 and Over in Nursing Homes.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding temporal changes in intrinsic capacity: analysis of domain-specific intrinsic capacity using SHARE data.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Intracranial Mitochondrial Microparticles Promote Cerebral Edema via Endothelial Injury in Stroke.Translational stroke research · 2026Observational
- Diagnostic accuracy of the WHO ICOPE step 1 screening tool in Korean community-dwelling older adults: a cross-sectional validation study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Research hotspots and trends in intrinsic capacity of older people in the context of population aging based on CiteSpace.Frontiers in aging · 2026Review
- Associations among self-reported oral health and intrinsic capacity domains in U.S. older adults: analysis from NHANES 2009-2014.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Intrinsic capacity (IC), a crucial indicator for the United Nations Decade of Healthy Ageing 2021-2030, is defined by WHO as the foundation of functional ability, representing the composite of all physical and mental capacities of an individual. IC spans five function domains: Locomotor, psychological, cognitive, vitality, and sensory (including vision and hearing). Accurate IC assessment is vital for effective interventions, yet comparative analyses of these tools are scarce. Consequently, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of three IC assessment tools in individuals aged 80 and above-Integrated care for older people (ICOPE) Step 1, ICOPE Step 2, and the Lopez-Ortiz's IC scoring system. Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional analysis included a total of 475 participants aged ≥80 years between July 2023 and January 2024 in 11 nursing homes in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China. To assess that included sociodemographic and health-related information alongside the three IC tools. Diagnostic efficacy was gauged using sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), accuracy, Youden index, and the area under the curve (AUC). Results: The detection of IC decline exceeded 85% across all methods. Using ICOPE Step 2 as a benchmark, ICOPE Step 1 showed robust performance across four domains of locomotion, psychological, cognitive, and vitality, whereas the Lopez-Ortiz's IC scoring system was generally ineffective. Conclusion: All three IC assessment methods have limitations. To save resources, ICOPE Step 1 can be considered for direct assessment in non-sensory domains. Conversely, the ICOPE Step 2 and Lopez-Ortiz's IC scoring systems exhibited overly stringent and lenient thresholds, respectively. At this stage, IC assessment tools cannot balance subjectivity and objectivity; thus, it is recommended that the appropriate tool be selected according to actual application scenarios. Continuous improvement of IC assessment tools remains a requirement for future studies.
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.