Thiago Gonzalez Barbosa-Silva1, Ana Maria Baptista Menezes2, Renata Moraes Bielemann2, Theodore K Malmstrom3, Maria Cristina Gonzalez4. 1. Postgraduate Program in Epidemiology, Universidade Federal de Pelotas (UFPel), Pelotas, RS, Brazil. Electronic address: tgbsilva@hotmail.com. 2. Postgraduate Program in Epidemiology, Universidade Federal de Pelotas (UFPel), Pelotas, RS, Brazil. 3. Departments of Psychiatry and Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO. 4. Postgraduate Program in Epidemiology, Universidade Federal de Pelotas (UFPel), Pelotas, RS, Brazil; Postgraduate Program in Health and Behavior, Universidade Católica de Pelotas (UCPel), Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To validate the (Brazilian) Portuguese-translated version of the SARC-F questionnaire and to verify its performance in the separate sarcopenia screening and muscle function evaluation contexts. In addition, by associating SARC-F to an anthropometric measurement (as an estimate of muscle mass), to test for improvements in its sarcopenia screening efficacy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Urban population of Pelotas, a middle-sized city in Southern Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: Subsample of 179 community-dwelling elderly aged 60 years or older derived from a population-based study (COMO VAI?). MEASUREMENTS: Sarcopenia was evaluated using the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People's diagnostic criteria: dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, handgrip strength, and walking speed test. Participants also completed SARC-F and their calf circumference (CC) was measured. SARC-F and CC were combined into an original score. The questionnaires' performances were evaluated through receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivity/specificity analyses, and Pearson χ2. RESULTS: Sarcopenia was identified in 15 (8.4%) participants by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People's criteria. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of SARC-F were 0.592 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.445, 0.739) screening for sarcopenia and 0.779 (95% CI 0.710, 0.846) evaluating muscle function (P < .001). The SARC-F+CC association significantly improved SARC-F's sarcopenia screening performance [area under the curve: 0.736 (95% CI 0.575, 0.897); comparing with SARC-F alone: P = .027]. A substantial improvement in sensitivity was achieved without compromising the remaining parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the satisfactory performance evaluating muscle function, SARC-F alone has not achieved adequate results as a sarcopenia screening tool. However, the SARC-F+CC association significantly improved SARC-F's sarcopenia screening performance, enabling its use in the clinical practice. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVES: To validate the (Brazilian) Portuguese-translated version of the SARC-F questionnaire and to verify its performance in the separate sarcopenia screening and muscle function evaluation contexts. In addition, by associating SARC-F to an anthropometric measurement (as an estimate of muscle mass), to test for improvements in its sarcopenia screening efficacy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Urban population of Pelotas, a middle-sized city in Southern Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: Subsample of 179 community-dwelling elderly aged 60 years or older derived from a population-based study (COMO VAI?). MEASUREMENTS: Sarcopenia was evaluated using the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People's diagnostic criteria: dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, handgrip strength, and walking speed test. Participants also completed SARC-F and their calf circumference (CC) was measured. SARC-F and CC were combined into an original score. The questionnaires' performances were evaluated through receiver operating characteristic curves, sensitivity/specificity analyses, and Pearson χ2. RESULTS:Sarcopenia was identified in 15 (8.4%) participants by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People's criteria. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of SARC-F were 0.592 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.445, 0.739) screening for sarcopenia and 0.779 (95% CI 0.710, 0.846) evaluating muscle function (P < .001). The SARC-F+CC association significantly improved SARC-F's sarcopenia screening performance [area under the curve: 0.736 (95% CI 0.575, 0.897); comparing with SARC-F alone: P = .027]. A substantial improvement in sensitivity was achieved without compromising the remaining parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the satisfactory performance evaluating muscle function, SARC-F alone has not achieved adequate results as a sarcopenia screening tool. However, the SARC-F+CC association significantly improved SARC-F's sarcopenia screening performance, enabling its use in the clinical practice. Copyright Â
Authors: D Sánchez-Rodríguez; E Marco; V Dávalos-Yerovi; J López-Escobar; M Messaggi-Sartor; C Barrera; N Ronquillo-Moreno; O Vázquez-Ibar; A Calle; M Inzitari; K Piotrowicz; X Duran; F Escalada; J M Muniesa; E Duarte Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: I Aprahamian; G V Aricó de Almeida; C F de Vasconcellos Romanin; T Gomes Caldas; N T Antunes Yoshitake; L Bataglini; S Mori Lin; A Alves Pereira; L Nara Alegrini Longhi; R L Mamoni; J E Martinelli Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: A P Rossi; R Micciolo; S Rubele; F Fantin; C Caliari; E Zoico; G Mazzali; E Ferrari; S Volpato; M Zamboni Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: E Dent; J E Morley; A J Cruz-Jentoft; H Arai; S B Kritchevsky; J Guralnik; J M Bauer; M Pahor; B C Clark; M Cesari; J Ruiz; C C Sieber; M Aubertin-Leheudre; D L Waters; R Visvanathan; F Landi; D T Villareal; R Fielding; C W Won; O Theou; F C Martin; B Dong; J Woo; L Flicker; L Ferrucci; R A Merchant; L Cao; T Cederholm; S M L Ribeiro; L Rodríguez-Mañas; S D Anker; J Lundy; L M Gutiérrez Robledo; I Bautmans; I Aprahamian; J M G A Schols; M Izquierdo; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Mary P Kotlarczyk; Subashan Perera; David A Nace; Neil M Resnick; Susan L Greenspan Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-11-20 Impact factor: 5.562