ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Diagnostic accuracy of the WHO ICOPE step 1 screening tool in Korean community-dwelling older adults: a cross-sectional validation study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The WHO ICOPE Step 1 tool screens decline in intrinsic capacity (IC), but its diagnostic accuracy has not been examined in Korea. This study evaluated four assessable non-sensory Step 1 domains against Korean-validated reference standards in Korean community-dwelling older adults. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 464 community-dwelling older adults (mean age 78.4 years; 67.9% female) from 11 community-based recruitment sites in urban and rural Jinju, South Korea. ICOPE Step 1 items were evaluated against reference standards in four assessable domains: cognition (Cognitive Impairment Screening Test [CIST], with age- and education-adjusted cutoffs), vitality (Mini-Nutritional Assessment Short-Form [MNA-SF] ≤ 11), psychological well-being (Geriatric Depression Scale [GDS-15] ≥ 8), and locomotion (Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB] ≤ 9). Hearing and vision were reported descriptively because objective sensory reference standards were unavailable. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, area under the curve (AUC), and Cohen's kappa were calculated for each domain and for overall screening. Post-hoc analyses examined modified SPPB, BMI-augmented vitality screening, cognition calibration, adjusted urban-rural differences, recruitment-source sensitivity, and prevalence-adjusted predictive values. Results: Overall, Step 1 screening across four domains showed sensitivity of 89.0%, specificity of 45.1%, and AUC of 0.671 for any IC decline. In the original SPPB-based analysis, locomotion showed the highest apparent accuracy (sensitivity 70.0%, specificity 83.6%, AUC = 0.768, Conclusion: Four assessable non-sensory ICOPE Step 1 domains showed acceptable overall case-finding sensitivity but heterogeneous domain-specific accuracy. Implementation should use education-stratified cognitive confirmation, BMI-augmented vitality screening, cautious interpretation of chair-rise locomotion results, and future objective validation of sensory domains.
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.