ArticleBMC women's health2025
The development and validation testing of a comprehensive frailty assessment in women with breast cancer.
Article in BMC women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Frailty in Geriatrics: A Critical Review with Content Analysis of Instruments, Overlapping Constructs, and Challenges in Diagnosis and Prognostic Precision.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWomen with breast cancer are known to suffer from disease and treatment, and the generic measurement tools may underestimate their frailty. A specific instrument comprehensively measuring frailty among women with breast cancer has not yet been developed. This study aims to develop and validate the tool of breast cancer comprehensive frailty scale (BCCFS).
methodsA descriptive and explorative study design was used. We collected the data through systematic literature and modified Delphi method. After an initial search and screening process, a total of 33 articles were included for review and consideration in the item design. Ten experts were invited to generate and validate initial items. The validity was assessed using a sample of 205 women with breast cancer in Taiwan. Its validity was then tested using item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, criterion-related validity and areas under the receiver-operating characteristic, while its reliability was evaluated through internal consistencies and test-retest analyses.
resultsA three-factor solution with 16 items was chosen and accounted for approximately 58.57% of the total variance by exploratory factor analysis (KMO = 0.85; Bartlett's Test of Sphericity: χ2 = 2881.34, p < 0.001). The factors were interpreted as (1) deterioration of body and mobility, (2) negative emotions, and (3) cognitive impairment. The goodness of fit indices of the confirmatory factor analysis were as follows: chi-square = 234.498 (p < 0.01), normed chi-square = 2.322, SRMR = 0.055, RMSEA = 0.08, CFI = 0.930, and LI = 0.917. The Cronbach's alpha calculated for the BCCFS (16 items) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval: 0.89 to 0.93), and the test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.60. Using the G8 screening tool as a standard indicator of frailty, analysis of receiver operating characteristic curve showed that 31.5 was the best cut point (area under curve = 0. 816, 95% confidence interval: 0.757 to 0.874) with a sensitivity of 63.5% and specificity of 84.4%.
conclusionThe instrument exhibited acceptable psychometric properties, proving it to be a valuable tool for evaluating frailty in women with breast cancer. Further assessments of its reliability, validity, and generality from health providers' views in different contexts and cultures are recommended.
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.