Accuracy and prognostic ability of the SARC-F questionnaire and Ishii's score in the screening of sarcopenia in geriatric inpatients

Li, Min; Kong, Yan; Chen, Hong-Cun; Chu, Aiqin; Song, Guiqi; Cui, Yan

doi:10.1590/1414-431x20198204

Cited by 49 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Applying the Youden index to our study population, we showed that the ideal SARC-F cut-off for sarcopenia diagnosis is lower than the score proposed in the validation study [ 7 ]. However, this result is in line with a previous report from Li et al [ 22 ] and was expected, considering that our study population, recruited in a geriatric acute care ward, is older and has larger burden of diseases.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Sarcopenia Risk Evaluation in a Sample of Hospitalized Elderly Men and Women: Combined Use of the Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment (MSRA) and the SARC-F

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: SARC-F and Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment (MSRA) questionnaires have been proposed as screening tools to identify patients at risk of sarcopenia. The aim of this study is to test the use of SARC-F and MSRA, alone and combined, as a pre-screening tool for sarcopenia in geriatric inpatients. Methods: 152 subjects, 94 men and 58 women, aged 70 to 94, underwent muscle mass evaluation by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), muscle strength evaluation by handgrip, and completed the MSRA, SARC-F and Activity of daily living (ADL) questionnaires. Results: 66 subjects (43.4%) were classified as sarcopenic according to the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 (EWGSOP2) criteria. The 7-item SARC-F and MRSA and 5-item MSRA showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.666 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.542–0.789), 0.730 (95% CI: 0.617–0.842) and 0.710 (95% CI: 0.593–0.827), respectively. The optimal cut-off points for sarcopenia detection were determined for each questionnaire using the Youden index method. The newly calculated cut-off points were ≤25 and ≤40 for MSRA 7- and 5-items, respectively. The ideal cut-off for the SARC-F was a score ≥ 3. Applying this new cut-off in our study population, sensitivity and specificity of the 7-item MSRA were 0.757 and 0.651, and 0.688 and 0.679 for the 5-item MSRA, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of SARC-F were 0.524 and 0.765, respectively. The combined use of the 7-item SARC-F and MSRA improved the accuracy in sarcopenia diagnosis, with a specificity and sensitivity of 1.00 and 0.636. Conclusion: 7-item SARC-F and MSRA may be co-administered in hospital wards as an easy, feasible, first-line tool to identify sarcopenic subjects.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Sarcopenia Risk Evaluation in a Sample of Hospitalized Elderly Men and Women: Combined Use of the Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment (MSRA) and the SARC-F

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A total of 21,855 individuals were included (20 to 3997 individuals per article), with a weighted mean age of 63.3 AE 14.6 years (range: 54.7 AE 11.3 years to 84.6 AE 9.17 years) and of which 61.3% were females (Table 1). Populations included community-dwelling older adults (n ¼ 1,618,957 individuals), 37e40,47e51,56,57,59e61, 63,64 geriatric inpatients (n ¼ 51,598 individuals), 41,43,44,53,54 geriatric outpatients (n ¼ 5802 individuals), 42,45,46,58 nursing home residents (n ¼ 2357 individuals), 62,65 and long-term care residents (n ¼ 1141 individuals). 52 Fifteen articles included individuals from Asia, 8 articles from Europe, 3 articles from South America, and 3 articles from North America.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the SARC-F and Its Modified Versions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Voelker

Michalopoulos

Maier

et al. 2021

Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Sarcopenia, being prevalent in up to 40% of older adults, is associated with adverse health outcomes. The international sarcopenia guidelines recommend screening for sarcopenia using the SARC-F. A previous meta-analysis (2017) reported poor validity of the SARC-F among community-dwelling older adults. Since then, modified SARC-F versions were developed and new sarcopenia definitions were published, including the SARC-F for case-finding. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the reliability of the SARC-F and its concurrent validity to identify sarcopenia. Design: Systematic review and meta-analyses. Setting and Participants: Adults (all ages) from any study population. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL (January 1, 2013, to April 6, 2020). Articles were included if they reported on the reliability and/or concurrent validity of the (modified) SARC-F. No restrictions were applied for sex, age, study population, or sarcopenia definition. Reliability measures included inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency. Meta-analyses were performed for concurrent validity. Results: The 29 included articles included 21,855 individuals (mean age of 63.3AE14.6 years, 61.3% females) among community-dwelling (n ¼ 16), geriatric inpatient (n ¼ 5), geriatric outpatient (n ¼ 2), nursing home (n ¼ 2), and long-term care (n ¼ 1) populations. The SARC-F had good (2/4 articles) to excellent (2/4 articles) inter-rater reliability, moderate (1/6 articles) to good (5/6 articles) test-retest reliability, and low (4/8 articles) to high (4/8 articles) internal consistency. The SARC-F had low to moderate sensitivity (28.9%-55.3%) and moderate to high specificity (68.9%-88.9%) according to the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP; n ¼ 13), revised EWGSOP definition (EWGSOP2; n ¼ 6), Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS; n ¼ 13), Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH; n ¼ 8), International Working Group on Sarcopenia (IWGS; n ¼ 9), and Society on Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders (n ¼ 2). The SARC-CalF had low to moderate sensitivity (45.9%-57.2%) and high specificity (87.7%-91.3%) according to the EWGSOP (n ¼ 5), AWGS (n ¼ 4), FNIH (n ¼ 3), and IWGS (n ¼ 3). Conclusions and Implications: Despite the good reliability of the SARC-F, its low to moderate sensitivity and moderate to high specificity make it nonoptimal to use for sarcopenia screening. It is recommended to apply the diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia without screening.

show abstract

“…20 A study involving 126 hospitalized older patients of Chinese descent showed that SARC-F questionnaire was an independent predictor of hospital readmission in 1 year (HR = 4.23; 95% CI, 2.12-9.79). 21 Another study, using SARC-F, showed a higher 4year rate of general hospitalizations in patients with suggestive of sarcopenia (65.6% vs 40%), compared with those without the condition. 15 No article was identified in the literature that assessed the association between sarcopenia screening and in-hospital mortality, so the prognostic value of SARC-CalF in predicting in-hospital mortality requires further investigation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

SARC‐CalF tool has no significant prognostic value in hospitalized patients: A prospective cohort study

Rodrigues¹,

Burgel²,

Brito

et al. 2021

Nut in Clin Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Screening of sarcopenia is proposed to identify patients who require the diagnosis of this condition. One of the proposed screening tools is Strength, Assistance with walking, Rise from a chair, Climb stairs, Fall and Calf Circumference (SARC-CalF). However, evidence for its applicability, especially in a hospital setting, is scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the association between "suggestive signs of sarcopenia using SARC-CalF" and clinical outcomes.Methods: Prospective cohort study with hospitalized patients aged ≥60 years was conducted, and they were evaluated within 48 h of admission using the SARC-CalF tool. Calf circumference and handgrip strength were measured, and the "timed get up and go" test was performed in all patients. The outcomes for testing the predictive validity of SARC-CalF were prolonged length of hospital stay, in-hospital death, hospital readmission, and mortality in 6 months.Results: Of the 554 patients (55.22 ± 14.91 years old, 52.9% males) evaluated, 17.3% were classified as having "suggestive signs of sarcopenia using SARC-CalF." In univariate analysis, "suggestive signs of sarcopenia using SARC-CalF" was associated with in-hospital death (P = .002) and mortality in 6 months (P = .004). However, in the multivariate analysis, these associations were not significant. Conclusion:SARC-CalF was not an independent predictor of clinical outcomes during the hospitalization neither in the following 6 months of discharge.

show abstract

Accuracy and prognostic ability of the SARC-F questionnaire and Ishii's score in the screening of sarcopenia in geriatric inpatients

Cited by 49 publications

References 34 publications

Sarcopenia Risk Evaluation in a Sample of Hospitalized Elderly Men and Women: Combined Use of the Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment (MSRA) and the SARC-F

Sarcopenia Risk Evaluation in a Sample of Hospitalized Elderly Men and Women: Combined Use of the Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment (MSRA) and the SARC-F

Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the SARC-F and Its Modified Versions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

SARC‐CalF tool has no significant prognostic value in hospitalized patients: A prospective cohort study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About