Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21edec388808cc1

Jump to content

Talk:Performance status

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 13 years ago by HackChirHack in topic Karnofsky scoring : On what is this scale based ?

Content

[edit]

Needs discussions of limitations, reliability, validity, effect of comorbidity, utility and comparison to more modern comparisons such as ADLs and IADLs. Mgoodyear (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The original publication of the Karnofsky score was published in 1948 in Cancer (and not in 1949 as stated in the text) Karnofsky, D. A., W. H. Abelmann, et al. (1948). "The use of nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinoma." Cancer: 634-656. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.181.1 (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Karnofsky scoring : On what is this scale based ?

[edit]

Hello,

please excuse me for my English (there is no article about this subject on Wikipedia in French...).

When I discovered the existence of the Karnofsky scoring, and that this scale is very widely used, after reading the criteria for the classification (as described for example in this article, or in any of the numerous websites found with Google with typing "Karnofsky"), I was VERY surprised about the vagueness and the arbitrary of this scale, although it was made around 65 years ago.

I am also very surprised that this scale can be still very widely used by doctors or nurses. So I'm asking on what is this scale based scientifically, and if there is a more precise (for not saying rigorous) way to classifying than this table.

Thanks for your answers.

HackChirHack (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply