ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Psychometric validation of the simplified Chinese clinical frailty scale in older Chinese patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Serbian Version of the Clinical Frailty Scale in Patients Undergoing Major Uro-Oncological Surgery.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Predicting 90-day falls and unplanned medical visits in nursing home residents using rapid nursing scores including calf circumference, grip strength, Timed Up and go (TUG) test, weight change, and appetite: a prospective observational cohort study protocol.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundFrailty heightens the risk of adverse perioperative outcomes in older patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA), yet no Simplified Chinese version of the nine‑point Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) has been validated for mainland China. This study translated and adapted the CFS into Simplified Chinese (SC‑CFS) and assessed its internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity in KOA patients awaiting total knee arthroplasty.
methodsFollowing Brislin's forward-backward translation protocol, 253 KOA patients (mean age 75.4 ± 8.0 years; 75.9% female) completed the SC‑CFS preoperatively. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's α. A subsample of 60 patients completed the SC‑CFS twice, one week apart, before surgery to calculate the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM). Construct validity was examined via Spearman's correlations between SC‑CFS and the FRAIL scale, Barthel Index, and EQ‑5D‑5 L total score. Multivariate linear regression (adjusting for gender, education, living status, and chronic diseases) was used to test SC‑CFS's independent predictive validity on Barthel Index.
resultsThe SC‑CFS demonstrated robust internal consistency (α = 0.91) and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.966; 95% CI 0.944-0.980; SEM = 0.30). Construct validity was confirmed by a strong positive correlation with the FRAIL scale (ρ = 0.802; 95% CI 0.752-0.843; p < 0.001), a moderate negative correlation with the Barthel Index (ρ = - 0.529; 95% CI - 0.615 to - 0.431; p < 0.001), and a weak positive correlation with EQ‑5D‑5 L (ρ = 0.260; 95% CI 0.138-0.375; p < 0.001). Multivariate regression identified SC‑CFS as the only independent predictor of Barthel Index (B = - 7.08 per CFS‑point, p < 0.001; adjusted R² = 0.30).
conclusionThe SC‑CFS is a reliable and valid instrument for preoperative frailty assessment in older Chinese KOA patients. Its robust psychometric properties support its integration into surgical risk stratification and personalized perioperative care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.