Screening Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: SARC-F vs SARC-F Combined With Calf Circumference (SARC-CalF)

Comparison of four sarcopenia screening questionnaires in community-dwelling older adults from Poland using six sets of international diagnostic criteria of sarcopenia

“…A higher AUC corresponded to a higher overall diagnostic accuracy. It was assumed that the AUC values >0.9, 0.7 to 0.9, and 0.5 to 0.7 corresponded to the high, moderate and low diagnostic accuracy of the screening test, respectively [10,31]. The areas under the ROC curve were compared using the Hanley-McNeil non-parametric method [32,33].…”

“…However, the screening results must be verified with a subsequent professional diagnosis, due to the risk of a false positive. Ideal screening tools should thus have reasonably high sensitivity and specificity, and an AUC value above 0.7 [10,34]. The larger the AUC, the better the overall diagnostic accuracy [10,18].…”

“…It evaluates the same domains as SARC-F, but it uses calf circumference (CC) as an additional measurement. In a few studies, SARC-CalF was found to have superior sensitivity than SARC-F, and similar specificity [9][10][11]. Another promising questionnaire proposed for sarcopenia screening is Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment Questionnaire (MSRA), available in two versions: short (MSRA-5) with five items, and full (MSRA-7) with seven items.…”

“…No studies comparing all four tools in non-institutionalised older subjects have been published. For community-dwelling older adults, there are as few as three reports that compare the diagnostic values of the SARC-F and SARC-CalF questionnaires [9,10,18], and one analysis comparing MSRA-5, MSRA-7 and SARC-F [19]. Thus, our study aims to assess the diagnostic value of these tools and compare the obtained results to fill the research gap in this area.…”

Is sarcopenia a real risk factor for mortality in patients undergoing hemodialysis?

“…Accurate measurement of muscle mass and quality is technically difficult. Historically, the calf circumference was used to determine muscle mass; however, it was shown to be a poor marker of muscle mass with limited individual prognostic relevance [15]. BIA is a relatively inexpensive, quick, and simple technique; however, the patient's hydration status, the machine and the equations used can affect the results [16].…”