↓ Skip to main content

The Functionality Assessment Flowchart (FAF): a new simple and reliable method to measure performance status with a high percentage of agreement between observers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Functionality Assessment Flowchart (FAF): a new simple and reliable method to measure performance status with a high percentage of agreement between observers
Published in
BMC Cancer, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1526-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Eduardo Paiva, Felipe Augusto Ferreira Siquelli, Henrique Amorim Santos, Marina Moreira Costa, Daniella Ramone Massaro, Domício Carvalho Lacerda, João Soares Nunes, Cristiano de Pádua Souza, Bianca Sakamoto Ribeiro Paiva

Abstract

Performance status (PS) assessment is an integral part of the decision-making process in cancer care. Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS are the most widely used tools. In some studies, the absolute agreement rate of these tools between observers has been moderate to low. The present study aimed to evaluate the inter-observer reliability and construct validity of the new Functionality Assessment Flowchart (FAF) and compare it with ECOG PS and KPS in a sample of cancer patients. The patients were recruited by convenience from the waiting rooms of the Breast and Gynecology Ambulatory in a cross-sectional study. Two trained medical students (observer A) and five medical oncologists (observers B) independently rated women according to the ECOG PS, KPS and FAF. After the determining the PS scores, observer A administered the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) questionnaire to the participants. The agreements between observers A and B were investigated using the absolute agreement rate (%), weighted and unweighted kappa and Spearman's correlation test. For construct validity, the PS scores were correlated with functional and fatigue scores by performing correlation analysis. Eighty women with a median age of 57 years were included in the study (86 % accrual rate). Among these women, 39 (48.8 %) had advanced cancer. The overall absolute agreement rate between observers was 49.4 % for KPS, 67 % for ECOG PS, and 78.2 % for FAF. When using unweighted kappa values, the inter-observer reliability was "fair", "moderate" and "substantial" for KPS, ECOG PS and FAF, respectively. However, when using weighted kappa statistics, "substantial" agreement was observed for KPS and ECOG PS and "nearly perfect" agreement was observed for FAF. All of the PS scales correlated very well with the functional and fatigue scores. We present a new instrument with moderate to high inter-observer agreement and adequate construct validity to measure PS in cancer patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 14 28%
Unknown 15 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 15 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2019.
All research outputs
#13,207,948
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,835
of 8,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,674
of 262,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#46
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,300 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,401 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.