ArticleClinical interventions in aging2025
Development, Reliability, and Validity of Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Tool for Older Adults with Cancer (FOAC) in China.
Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Purpose: With the accelerating ageing population, frailty has emerged as a critical concern among older cancer patients. The purpose of the study was to develop a valid and reliable Comprehensive Frailty Assessment Tool for Older Adults with Cancer (FOAC) in China. Patients and Methods: The FOAC was developed in 4 phases. Phase 1: Conceptualization and Item Generation:32 items were formulated from the literature. Phase 2: Content validation of the FOAC by modified Delphi method. Phase 3: Face validity index (FVI) was calculated by recording the views of two groups, including older adults with cancer and those with professional roles. Phase 4:Using CGA-determined frailty as the dependent variable, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was conducted using FOAC, FP, and aCGA frailty screening scales as independent variables and their area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, cut-off value, predicted value, and accuracy were determined. Internal consistency reliability measurement was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. Results: The FOAC has 30 items. Physiological dimension (11 items). Psychological & cognitive dimension (12 items). Social support (7 items). the results of this study demonstrated that the overall Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.869. Conclusion: The FOAC is a valid and reliable frailty screening tool that significantly addresses the problems of existing frailty assessment tools, such as single dimension, low sensitivity, complex scoring, and insufficient clinical applicability. It contributes to guiding healthcare professionals in providing more accurate diagnosis, treatment, and cancer management for older adults.
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.