Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40745097›Full record

ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025

The implementation of frailty assessment in gynecologic oncology: an international multicenter JAGO-NOGGO survey.

C Flethe, C Krause, A von Beckerath, S Alavi-Demirci, G Kolb, M Beck, K Pietzner, J Sehouli

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

C FletheYoung Academy of Gynecologic Oncology (JAGO), North-Eastern German Society of Gynecologic Oncology (NOGGO), Berlin, Germany. Chiara.flethe@charite.de.ORCID 0009-0000-4429-2840
C KrauseYoung Academy of Gynecologic Oncology (JAGO), North-Eastern German Society of Gynecologic Oncology (NOGGO), Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3071-3605
A von BeckerathYoung Academy of Gynecologic Oncology (JAGO), North-Eastern German Society of Gynecologic Oncology (NOGGO), Berlin, Germany.
S Alavi-DemirciYoung Academy of Gynecologic Oncology (JAGO), North-Eastern German Society of Gynecologic Oncology (NOGGO), Berlin, Germany.
G KolbPractice for Physical and Rehabilitative Medicine and Geriatrics, Lingen, Germany.ORCID 0009-0001-3348-7877
M BeckYoung Academy of Gynecologic Oncology (JAGO), North-Eastern German Society of Gynecologic Oncology (NOGGO), Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0400-0046
K PietznerYoung Academy of Gynecologic Oncology (JAGO), North-Eastern German Society of Gynecologic Oncology (NOGGO), Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2056-1668
J SehouliYoung Academy of Gynecologic Oncology (JAGO), North-Eastern German Society of Gynecologic Oncology (NOGGO), Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5963-6623

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe global aging trend is expected to double the population aged 65 and older by 2050, posing new challenges for healthcare systems. Frailty is associated with poorer prognosis, increased postoperative complications, and reduced treatment tolerance. Accurate frailty assessment (FA) is therefore crucial for diagnosis, risk stratification, and individualized treatment planning. Despite its clinical relevance, clear evidence-based guidance for implementation in gynecologic oncology remains lacking.

methodsAn anonymous online survey with 51 multiple-choice and open-ended questions was conducted from May to August 2022. It targeted gynecologists and oncologists in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, and was distributed to 633 healthcare institutions.

resultsA total of 112 responses were analyzed, revealing considerable variation in the application of frailty assessments. Only 11% reported routine use, while 36% applied FA selectively. Screening tools varied: 52% used institution-specific forms, while validated instruments such as G8 or VES-13 were rarely used. Timing was inconsistent: 49% performed FA preoperatively, 36% before chemotherapy, 31% at first presentation, and 30% without a fixed timepoint. Prehabilitation programs were largely absent; only 21% of institutions offered them. 77% of respondents indicated a need for further training.

conclusionThere are substantial gaps in the use of frailty assessments in gynecologic oncology. Standardized procedures, prehabilitation programs, and targeted education are essential to improve care quality and treatment outcomes in the context of an aging patient population.

Indexed as

FrailtyGenital Neoplasms, FemaleGeriatric AssessmentGynecologyMedical OncologyPractice Patterns, Physicians'AgedAustriaFemaleGermanyHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesSwitzerlandFrailtyFrailty assessmentGynecologic oncology

Identifiers

PMID40745097
PMCPMC12414013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.