ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Validation of a frailty phenotype screening questionnaire for rural Chinese older adults: a cross-sectional study.
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 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFrailty represents a significant public health issue among older adults in rural China. While the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) is one of the most widely used and well-validated tools for assessing physical frailty, its reliance on physical performance measures and specialized devices limits its feasibility for large-scale screening in such settings. Therefore, a simple and feasible screening instrument based on the FFP framework is needed.
aimTo validate the Chinese Frailty Phenotype Questionnaire (CFPQ) for rural Chinese older adults.
methodsThis cross-sectional study enrolled 1590 rural-dwelling adults (≥ 65 years) in northern China. The 5-item dichotomous questionnaire operationalized the criteria of the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP) endorsed by the Chinese Medical Association (CMA) and included five items: Fatigue, Resistance, Ambulation, Inactivity and Loss of weight. The psychometric evaluation assessed reliability (including internal consistency and test-retest stability), construct validity (including convergent and discriminant validity) and criterion validity. Criterion validity was evaluated through diagnostic accuracy (ROC analysis) and agreement with the criterion standard (kappa statistic).
resultsThe CFPQ showed a test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.89. The internal consistency, measured using Kuder-Richardson formula 20, was 0.49. Construct validity was assessed by calculating correlation coefficients between CFPQ items and cross-sectional outcomes, which ranged from - 0.33 to 0.23. Convergent validity was supported by theoretically consistent correlations: Ambulation was negatively associated with gait speed (r = -0.33, p < 0.001); Resistance with the 30-second chair stand test (r = -0.23, p < 0.001); Fatigue with the EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale (r = -0.20, p < 0.001), and Loss of weight with body mass index (r = -0.11, p < 0.001). Discriminant validity was evidenced by statistically distinct patterns of correlations across domains. Against the Fried Frailty Phenotype (FFP-CMA) criterion, the CFPQ achieved an area under the curve of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.92-0.95). A score of ≥ 3 was identified as the optimal cut-off, with a specificity of 97.3%, a negative predictive value of 98.9%, and a positive predictive value of 34.4%. The kappa statistic indicating agreement between the CFPQ and FFP-CMA was 0.41.
conclusionThe CFPQ demonstrates acceptable validity and reliability as a practical tool for frailty phenotype screening among rural-dwelling older adults in China. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.