SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2026
The predictive value of multidimensional frailty instruments for postoperative adverse outcomes in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo systematically review the predictive performance of Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI), Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), and Edmonton Frailty Scale (EFS) for adverse outcomes including postoperative complications, unplanned readmission, 30-day mortality, prolonged length of stay among cancer patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across English and Chinese databases until October 2, 2025. Risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Predictive performance was evaluated by pooling sensitivity, specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves.
resultsThere were 21 studies (4,435 individuals) that were included for the meta-analysis. TFI demonstrated pooled sensitivities of 0.64 (for postoperative complications), 0.77 (for unplanned readmission), and 0.50 (for prolonged hospital stay), with corresponding specificities of 0.67, 0.54, and 0.64 respectively. The areas under the curve (AUC) were 0.70, 0.71, and 0.60. GFI demonstrated sensitivities of 0.59, 0.65, and 0.55 for complications, 30-day mortality, and functional decline, with specificity of 0.73, 0.63, and 0.77, and the AUC of 0.71, 0.68, and 0.74. EFS had sensitivity 0.39, specificity 0.87, and AUC 0.57 for complications. Subgroup analysis revealed that TFI had reasonable predictive value for adverse outcomes with sensitivity 0.61-0.81 and specificity 0.60-0.68 among most gynecological and gastrointestinal cancer subgroups. In most subgroups, GFI showed higher specificity (0.64-0.84) relative to sensitivity (0.43-0.68).
conclusionTFI and GFI demonstrated moderate predictive validity for adverse outcomes, whereas EFS exhibited poor predictive performance. These findings highlight the necessity for caution interpretation of frailty assessments in clinical practice and underscore the importance of further validating these tools within diverse oncological contexts.
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.