The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Performance status assessment in cancer patients. An inter-observer variability study
Open accessAbstract
The ECOG Scale of Performance Status (PS) is widely used to quantify the functional status of cancer patients, and is an important factor determining prognosis in a number of malignant conditions. The PS describes the status of symptoms and functions with respect to ambulatory status and need for care. PS 0 means normal activity, PS 1 means some symptoms, but still near fully ambulatory, PS 2 means less than 50%, and PS 3 means more than 50% of daytime in bed, while PS 4 means completely bedridden. An inter-observer variability study of PS assessment has been carried out to evaluate the non-chance agreement among three oncologists rating 100 consecutive cancer patients. Total unanimity was observed in 40 cases, unanimity between two observers in 53 cases, and total disagreement in seven cases. Kappa statistics reveal the ability of the observers compared to change alone and were used to evaluate non-chance agreement. Overall Kappa was 0.44, (95% confidence limits 0.38-0.51). The Kappa for PS 0 was 0.55 (0.44-0.67), while those for PS 1, 2, 3 and four were 0.48 (0.37-0.60), 0.31 (0.19-0.42), 0.43 (0.32-0.55), and 0.33 (0.33-0.45), respectively. If one observer allocated patients to PS 0-2, then another randomly selected observed placed the patients in the same category with a probability of 0.92. For patients with PS 3-4 the probability that the same category would be chosen was 0.82. Overall, the non-chance agreement between observers was only moderate, when all ECOG Performance Status groups were considered. However, agreement with regard to allocation of patients to PS 0-2 versus 3-4 was high. This is of interest because this cut-off is often used in clinical studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: the 2022 update
Reig, M., Forner, A., Rimola, J., Ferrer-Fàbrega, J., Burrel, M., Garcia-Criado, Á., Kelley, R. K., Galle, P. R., Mazzaferro, V., Salem, R., et al. (2022) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.018 · Cited by 4,319
Azam, F., Latif, M. F., Farooq, A., Tirmazy, S. H., AlShahrani, S., Bashir, S., & Bukhari, N. (2019) · Case Reports in Oncology · doi:10.1159/000503095 · Cited by 374
Kluetz, P. G., Chingos, D. T., Basch, E. M., & Mitchell, S. A. (2016) · American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book · doi:10.1200/edbk_159514 · Cited by 361
A framework for evaluating clinical artificial intelligence systems without ground-truth annotations
Kiyasseh, D., Cohen, A., Jiang, C., & Altieri, N. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46000-9 · Cited by 26
Chinh, K., Secinti, E., Johns, S., Hirsh, A., Miller, K., Schneider, B., Storniolo, A. M., Mina, L., Newton, E., Champion, V., et al. (2020) · Oncology Nursing Forum · doi:10.1188/20.onf.739-752 · Cited by 17
“Patients were ineligible if they had a self-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) (Sørensen et al., 1993) Performance Status score of greater than 2 (able to do little activity), showed severe cognitive impairment (three or more errors on a six-item cognitive function screener)…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Sørensen, J., Klee, M., Palshof, T., & Hansen, H.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 1993-04
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 773-775
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W2058786880
- Cited by
- 483
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Performance status assessment in cancer patients. An inter-observer variability study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.1993.140
- The paper
- Sørensen, J., Klee, M., Palshof, T., & Hansen, H. (1993). Performance status assessment in cancer patients. An inter-observer variability study. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1993.140
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.