G Bahat1, M M Oren, O Yilmaz, C Kılıç, K Aydin, M A Karan. 1. Dr. Gülistan Bahat, MD, Istanbul University Istanbul Medical School Department of Internal Medicine Division of Geriatrics Capa, 34093, Istanbul, Turkey, Telephone: +90 212 414 20 00- 31478, 33090, Fax: +90 212 414 22 48, +90 212 532 42 08, gbahatozturk@yahoo.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic value of the SARC-F combined with calf circumference (SARC-CalF) with the standard SARC-F to screen sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study. SETTING: Geriatric outpatient clinic of a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults >= 65 years. MEASUREMENTS: Muscle mass (bioimpedance analysis device), muscle strength (hand grip strength-Jamar hydraulic hand dynamometer), and physical performance (usual gait speed). Four currently used diagnostic criteria [European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP), Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH), International Working Group on Sarcopenia (IWGS), and Society on Sarcopenia Cachexia and Wasting Disorders (SCWD) criteria] were applied. SARC-CalF was performed by using two different calf circumference threshold: standard cut-off 31 cm (SARC-CalF-31) and national cut-off 33 cm (SARC-CalF-33). The sensitivity/specificity analyses of the SARC-CalF and SARC-F tools were run. We used the receiver operating characteristics curves and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUC) to compare the diagnostic accuracy to identify sarcopenia. RESULTS: We included 207 subjects; 67 male and 140 female with a mean age of 74.6±6.7 years. The prevalence of sarcopenia ranged from 1.9% to 9.2%. The sensitivity of SARC-F was between 25% (EWGSOP) and 50% (IWGS); specificity was about 82%. For SARC-CalF-31 and SARC-CalF-33 sensitivity was in general similar -between 25-50%- which pointed out that SARC-CalF was not superior to SARC-F for sensitivity in this sample. Corresponding specificities for SARC-CalF-31 and SARC-CalF-33 were higher than SARC-F and were between 90-98%. Additionally, the AUC values, which indicates the diagnostic accuracy of a screening test, were in general higher for SARC-CalF-33 than the SARC-F and SARC-CalF-31. CONCLUSIONS: We reported that addition of calf circumference item to SARC-F tool improved the specificity and diagnostic accuracy of SARC-F but it did not improve the sensitivity in a community-dwelling Turkish older adult population sample that had low prevalence of sarcopenia. The performance of SARC-CalF tool to screen sarcopenia is to be studied in different populations and living settings.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic value of the SARC-F combined with calf circumference (SARC-CalF) with the standard SARC-F to screen sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study. SETTING: Geriatric outpatient clinic of a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults >= 65 years. MEASUREMENTS: Muscle mass (bioimpedance analysis device), muscle strength (hand grip strength-Jamar hydraulic hand dynamometer), and physical performance (usual gait speed). Four currently used diagnostic criteria [European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP), Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH), International Working Group on Sarcopenia (IWGS), and Society on Sarcopenia Cachexia and Wasting Disorders (SCWD) criteria] were applied. SARC-CalF was performed by using two different calf circumference threshold: standard cut-off 31 cm (SARC-CalF-31) and national cut-off 33 cm (SARC-CalF-33). The sensitivity/specificity analyses of the SARC-CalF and SARC-F tools were run. We used the receiver operating characteristics curves and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUC) to compare the diagnostic accuracy to identify sarcopenia. RESULTS: We included 207 subjects; 67 male and 140 female with a mean age of 74.6±6.7 years. The prevalence of sarcopenia ranged from 1.9% to 9.2%. The sensitivity of SARC-F was between 25% (EWGSOP) and 50% (IWGS); specificity was about 82%. For SARC-CalF-31 and SARC-CalF-33 sensitivity was in general similar -between 25-50%- which pointed out that SARC-CalF was not superior to SARC-F for sensitivity in this sample. Corresponding specificities for SARC-CalF-31 and SARC-CalF-33 were higher than SARC-F and were between 90-98%. Additionally, the AUC values, which indicates the diagnostic accuracy of a screening test, were in general higher for SARC-CalF-33 than the SARC-F and SARC-CalF-31. CONCLUSIONS: We reported that addition of calf circumference item to SARC-F tool improved the specificity and diagnostic accuracy of SARC-F but it did not improve the sensitivity in a community-dwelling Turkish older adult population sample that had low prevalence of sarcopenia. The performance of SARC-CalF tool to screen sarcopenia is to be studied in different populations and living settings.
Authors: John E Morley; Angela Marie Abbatecola; Josep M Argiles; Vickie Baracos; Juergen Bauer; Shalender Bhasin; Tommy Cederholm; Andrew J Stewart Coats; Steven R Cummings; William J Evans; Kenneth Fearon; Luigi Ferrucci; Roger A Fielding; Jack M Guralnik; Tamara B Harris; Akio Inui; Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh; Bridget-Anne Kirwan; Giovanni Mantovani; Maurizio Muscaritoli; Anne B Newman; Filippo Rossi-Fanelli; Giuseppe M C Rosano; Ronenn Roubenoff; Morris Schambelan; Gerald H Sokol; Thomas W Storer; Bruno Vellas; Stephan von Haehling; Shing-Shing Yeh; Stefan D Anker Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Gulistan Bahat; Asli Tufan; Fatih Tufan; Cihan Kilic; Timur Selçuk Akpinar; Murat Kose; Nilgun Erten; Mehmet Akif Karan; Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft; Jean Pierre Baeyens; Jürgen M Bauer; Yves Boirie; Tommy Cederholm; Francesco Landi; Finbarr C Martin; Jean-Pierre Michel; Yves Rolland; Stéphane M Schneider; Eva Topinková; Maurits Vandewoude; Mauro Zamboni Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Thiago Gonzalez Barbosa-Silva; Ana Maria Baptista Menezes; Renata Moraes Bielemann; Theodore K Malmstrom; Maria Cristina Gonzalez Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2016-09-17 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Roma Krzymińska-Siemaszko; Ewa Deskur-Śmielecka; Aleksandra Kaluźniak-Szymanowska; Marta Lewandowicz; Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 4.458
Authors: Reshma Aziz Merchant; Richard Jor Yeong Hui; Sing Cheer Kwek; Meena Sundram; Arthur Tay; Jerome Jayasundram; Matthew Zhixuan Chen; Shu Ee Ng; Li Feng Tan; John E Morley Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2020-07-08