Satoshi Ida1, Ryutaro Kaneko2, Kazuya Murata2. 1. Department of Diabetes and Metabolism, Ise Red Cross Hospital, Ise-shi, Mie, Japan. Electronic address: bboy98762006@yahoo.co.jp. 2. Department of Diabetes and Metabolism, Ise Red Cross Hospital, Ise-shi, Mie, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the screening ability of SARC-F for older adults using a meta-analysis. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The literature review was conducted using MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Articles written on and after 1960 that included data regarding the sensitivity and specificity of SARC-F's diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia in older adults were searched. MEASURES: The bivariate random effects model was used to calculate the summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The summary receiver operating characteristic curve was used to summarize the overall test performance. RESULTS: Seven studies involving a total of 12,800 subjects met the eligibility criteria of our study. The pooled results of sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR with the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People as the reference standard were 0.21 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.13-0.31], 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.94), 2.16 (95% CI, 1.51-3.09), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.80-0.95), and 2.47 (95% CI, 1.64-3.74), respectively. Overall, we achieved similar pooled results of sensitivity and specificity for studies using the International Working Group on Sarcopenia and Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia as the reference standards. Because few studies used the Foundation National Institute of Health reference standards, a meta-analysis was not performed. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Although the screening sensitivity performance of SARC-F was poor, its specificity was high; thus, it is an effective tool for selecting subjects who should undergo further testing for confirming a diagnosis of sarcopenia.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the screening ability of SARC-F for older adults using a meta-analysis. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The literature review was conducted using MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Articles written on and after 1960 that included data regarding the sensitivity and specificity of SARC-F's diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia in older adults were searched. MEASURES: The bivariate random effects model was used to calculate the summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The summary receiver operating characteristic curve was used to summarize the overall test performance. RESULTS: Seven studies involving a total of 12,800 subjects met the eligibility criteria of our study. The pooled results of sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR with the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People as the reference standard were 0.21 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.13-0.31], 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.94), 2.16 (95% CI, 1.51-3.09), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.80-0.95), and 2.47 (95% CI, 1.64-3.74), respectively. Overall, we achieved similar pooled results of sensitivity and specificity for studies using the International Working Group on Sarcopenia and Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia as the reference standards. Because few studies used the Foundation National Institute of Health reference standards, a meta-analysis was not performed. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Although the screening sensitivity performance of SARC-F was poor, its specificity was high; thus, it is an effective tool for selecting subjects who should undergo further testing for confirming a diagnosis of sarcopenia.
Authors: J Zanker; D Scott; E M Reijnierse; S L Brennan-Olsen; R M Daly; C M Girgis; M Grossmann; A Hayes; T Henwood; V Hirani; C A Inderjeeth; S Iuliano; J W L Keogh; J R Lewis; A B Maier; J A Pasco; S Phu; K M Sanders; M Sim; R Visvanathan; D L Waters; S C Y Yu; G Duque Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2019 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: Samuel T H Chew; Geetha Kayambu; Charles Chin Han Lew; Tze Pin Ng; Fangyi Ong; Jonathan Tan; Ngiap Chuan Tan; Shuen-Loong Tham Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 3.921