ArticlePloS one2020
Comparison of four sarcopenia screening questionnaires in community-dwelling older adults from Poland using six sets of international diagnostic criteria of sarcopenia.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening Accuracy of SARC-F for Sarcopenia in the Elderly: A Diagnostic Meta-Analysis.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2021Pooled it
- Parker Mobility Score as a Screening Tool for Sarcopenia in Older German Adults: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Trial Data.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Review
- The predictive values of sarcopenia screening tools in preoperative elderly patients with colorectal cancer: applying the diagnostic criteria of EWGSOP2 and AWGS2019.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Explaining the Association Between Number of Teeth and Frailty in Older Chinese Adults: The Chain Mediating Effect of Nutritional Status and Cognitive Function.International journal of nursing practice · 2025Article
- Prevention of Sarcopenia.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025Review
- Sarcopenia in interstitial lung disease.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024Review
- Prevalence of sarcopenic obesity: comparison of different diagnostic criteria and exploration of optimal screening methods.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Protein Intake and Physical Activity Levels as Determinants of Sarcopenia Risk in Community-Dwelling Older Adults.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Case-Finding for Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Comparison of Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment with SARC-F and SARC-CalF.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Criteria and Measurement Techniques of Sarcopenia: A Critical Evaluation of the Up-to-Date Evidence.Nutrients · 2024Review
- Diagnostic performance of SARC-F and SARC-CalF in screening for sarcopenia in older adults in Northern Brazil.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Greek Translation, Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment Questionnaire, to Evaluate Sarcopenia in Greek Elderly at a Hospital Setting.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2023Article
- Comparison of Diagnostic Value of the SARC-F and Its Four Modified Versions in Polish Community-Dwelling Older Adults.Clinical interventions in aging · 2023Article
- Sarcopenia screening in elderly with Alzheimer's disease: performances of the SARC-F-3 and MSRA-5 questionnaires.BMC geriatrics · 2022Observational
- Article
- Comparison of the 2010 and 2019 diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) in two cohorts of Swedish older adults.BMC geriatrics · 2021Article
- SARC-F as a case-finding tool for sarcopenia according to the EWGSOP2. National validation and comparison with other diagnostic standards.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere are four screening sarcopenia questionnaires (SARC-F, SARC-CalF, MSRA-5, MSRA-7). To unambiguously determine which of them is the most effective tool in community-dwelling older adults, we performed a diagnostic accuracy study. The aim of the analysis was to assess the diagnostic values of SARC-F, SARC-CalF, MSRA-5, MSRA-7 and compare their psychometric properties against six criterion standards (EWGSOP1, EWGSOP2, FNIH, AWGS, IWGS, SCWD criteria). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe included 100 community-dwelling volunteers aged ≥ 65yrs. The sensitivity/specificity analyses were performed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the ROC curves (AUC) were calculated to compare the overall diagnostic accuracy of the four questionnaires. Ideal screening tools should have reasonably high sensitivity and specificity, and an AUC value above 0.7.
resultsWith respect to the six criterion standards used, the sensitivity of SARC-F, SARC-CalF, MSRA-5, and MSRA-7 ranged 35.0-90.0%, 20.0-75.0%, 64.7-90.0%, 76.5-91.7%, respectively, whereas the specificity ranged 86.9-91.1%, 80.0-90.0%, 45.8-48.8%, 28.9-31.0% respectively. The AUCs of SARC-F, SARC-CalF, MSRA-5, and MSRA-7 ranged from 0.655-0.882, 0.711-0.874, 0.618-0.782 and 0.588-0.711 respectively. Only SARC-CalF had AUC >0.7 and <0.9 against the six criterion standards but obesity was a confounding factor, which may affect the diagnostic power of SARC-CalF. MSRA-7 had the smallest AUC of all the questionnaires and MSRA-5 had slightly larger AUC than MSRA-7.
conclusionBased on our analysis, the standard sarcopenia screening questionnaires deliver contradictory results in many practically occurring cases. It appears that SARC-CalF is an optimal choice for screening sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.