Suppr超能文献

实体肿瘤化疗患者中三种不同的老年简短筛查量表之间的一致性分析

Agreement analysis between three different short geriatric screening scales in patients undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumors.

作者信息

Joshi Amit, Tandon Nidhi, Patil Vijay M, Noronha Vanita, Gupta Sudeep, Bhattacharjee Atanu, Prabhash Kumar

机构信息

Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Division of Clinical Research and Biostatistics, Malabar Cancer Centre, Kerala, India.

出版信息

J Cancer Res Ther. 2017 Oct-Dec;13(6):1023-1026. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.179062.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in routine practice is not logistically feasible. Short geriatric screening tools are available for selecting patients for CGA. However none of them is validated in India. In this analysis we aim to compare the level of agreement between three commonly used short screening tools (Flemish version of TRST (fTRST), G8 and VES-13.

METHODS

Patients ≥65 years with a solid tumor malignancy undergoing cancer directed treatment were interviewed between March 2013 to July 2014. Geriatric screening with G8, fTRST and VES-13 tools was performed in these patients. G8 score ≤14, fTRST score ≥1 and VES-13 score ≥3 were taken as indicators for the presence of a high risk geriatric profile respectively. R version 3.1.2 was used for analysis. Cohen kappa agreement statistics was used to compare the agreement between the 3 tools. p value of 0.05 was taken as significant.

RESULTS

The kappa statistics value for agreement between G8 score and fTRST, between VES-13 and fTRST and between VES-13 and G8 were 0.12 (P = 0.04), 0.16 (P = 0.07) and 0.05 (P = 0.45) respectively. It was found that maximum agreement was observed for VES-13 and fTRST. The agreement value of VES-13 and fTRST observed was 59.44 %(39.63% for high risk profile and 19.81% for low risk profile). The agreement value of G-8 and fTRST was 39.62% (2.83% only for high risk profile and 36.79% for low risk profile). The lowest agreement was between G8 and VES-13, 35.84% (7.54% for high risk detection and 28.30% for low risk detection).

CONCLUSION

There was poor agreement (in view of kappa value been below 0.2) between the 3 short geriatric screening tools. Research needs to be directed to compare the agreement level between these 3 scales and CGA, so that the appropriate short screening tool can be selected for routine use.

摘要

背景

在日常实践中进行全面老年综合评估(CGA)在后勤方面不可行。有一些简短的老年筛查工具可用于选择进行CGA的患者。然而,它们在印度均未得到验证。在本分析中,我们旨在比较三种常用的简短筛查工具(佛兰芒语版的TRST(fTRST)、G8和VES - 13)之间的一致性水平。

方法

2013年3月至2014年7月期间,对年龄≥65岁、患有实体肿瘤恶性肿瘤且正在接受癌症针对性治疗的患者进行了访谈。对这些患者使用G8、fTRST和VES - 13工具进行老年筛查。G8评分≤14、fTRST评分≥1和VES - 13评分≥3分别被视为存在高风险老年特征的指标。使用R 3.1.2版本进行分析。采用Cohen kappa一致性统计来比较这三种工具之间的一致性。p值取0.05为有统计学意义。

结果

G8评分与fTRST之间、VES - 13与fTRST之间以及VES - 13与G8之间的kappa统计值分别为0.12(P = 0.04)、0.16(P = 0.07)和0.05(P = 0.45)。发现VES - 13与fTRST之间的一致性最高。观察到VES - 13与fTRST的一致性值为59.44%(高风险特征为39.63%,低风险特征为19.81%)。G - 8与fTRST的一致性值为39.62%(仅高风险特征为2.83%,低风险特征为36.79%)。G8与VES - 13之间的一致性最低,为35.84%(高风险检测为7.54%,低风险检测为28.30%)。

结论

这三种简短的老年筛查工具之间的一致性较差(鉴于kappa值低于0.2)。需要开展研究以比较这三种量表与CGA之间的一致性水平,以便选择合适的简短筛查工具用于日常使用。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验