ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Translation and validation of the Thai clinical frailty scale and classification tree in older adults.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. 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.
- Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Serbian Version of the Clinical Frailty Scale in Patients Undergoing Major Uro-Oncological Surgery.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Development and validation of the Frailty Questionnaire-5 (FQ-5), a PRISMA-7-derived screening tool for frailty: a diagnostic accuracy study in primary care.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is widely used for frailty assessment, but has not yet been formally validated for use in Thai populations. This study evaluated the reliability and validity of the Thai versions of the CFS (CFS-Thai) and its Classification Tree (CFS-CT-Thai).
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 213 participants aged ≥ 65 years (127 outpatients and 86 inpatients) were enrolled from two tertiary care hospitals in Thailand. The CFS and CFS-CT were translated into Thai using standard procedures. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated in a subsample of 53 inpatients. Concurrent validity was examined using the Thai version of the FRAIL scale (T-FRAIL), the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), and the modified Thai Frailty Index (mTFI).
resultsThe CFS-Thai showed strong inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.80, p < 0.001) and excellent agreement with the CFS-CT-Thai (κ = 0.94, p < 0.001). It demonstrated moderate correlation with T-FRAIL (ρ = 0.53) and strong correlation with ECOG PS (ρ = 0.76) and mTFI (ρ = 0.73). Using mTFI as the reference standard, the CFS-Thai showed high sensitivity (92.7%) and lower specificity (55.0%) at cut-off ≥ 4 (AUC = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62-0.86), while cut-off ≥ 5 improved specificity (79.3%) and retained high sensitivity (93.5%) (AUC = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.92). ECOG PS ≥ 2 provided balanced diagnostic performance (sensitivity 83.9%, specificity 93.3%, AUC = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.82-0.95).
conclusionsThe CFS-Thai and CFS-CT-Thai are reliable and valid instruments for frailty assessment in Thai older adults. Their diagnostic accuracy supports integration into clinical practice, especially in settings with limited geriatric expertise. Further studies should examine their implementation across diverse populations and their predictive value for clinical outcomes.
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.