Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33491031›Full record

SynthesisThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2021

Screening Accuracy of SARC-F for Sarcopenia in the Elderly: A Diagnostic Meta-Analysis.

J-L Lu, L-Y Ding, Q Xu, S-Q Zhu, X-Y Xu, H-X Hua, L Chen, H Xu

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

J-L LuQin Xu, Professor of Nursing, School of Nursing, Nanjing Medical University, 140 Hanzhong Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, China (211166), E-mail: qinxu@njmu.edu.cn.
L-Y Ding
Q Xu
S-Q Zhu
X-Y Xu
H-X Hua
L Chen
H Xu
Nanjing Medical University · CNJiangsu Province Hospital · CNQueensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSarcopenia is an age-related disease, which is characterized by a decline in muscle mass and function. It is one of the most important health issues in the elderly and often leads to a high rate and variety of adverse outcomes.

objectivesTo evaluate the screening accuracy of SARC-F for sarcopenia in the elderly.

designWe conducted a meta-analysis using articles available in 6 databases including PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database (CNKI), and Wanfang databases from inception to May 2020.

participantsAdults aged 60 years and older. MEASUREMENTS: Sarcopenia was defined by EWGSOP2, EWGSOP, AWGS, FNIH and IWGS. Two authors independently extracted data based on predefined criteria. Where data were available we calculated pooled summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) based on different criteria using the hierarchical logistic regression modeling including bivariate modeling and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) modeling.

resultsWe included 20 studies, with the prevalence of sarcopenia ranging from 6.42% to 21.56%. The number of the literatures using EWGSOP, EWGSOP2, AWGS, IWGS and FNIH as diagnostic criteria was 13, 4, 13, 8, 7, respectively. Bivariate analysis yielded a pooled sensitivity of 32% (95%CI:19%-47%), 77% (95%CI: 49%-92%), 27% (95%CI: 16%-42%), 39% (95%CI: 27%-52%), 35% (95%CI: 23%-49%) and a pooled specificity of 86% (95%CI:77%-92%), 63% (95%CI: 43%-79%), 91% (95%CI: 85%-95%), 86% (95%CI: 76%-92%), 89% (95%CI: 81%-93%), respectively. The area under the HSROC curve were 0.68 (95%CI: 0.64-0.72), 0.75 (95%CI: 0.71-0.78), 0.73 (95%CI: 0.69-0.77), 0.67 (95%CI: 0.62-0.71), 0.70 (95%CI: 0.65-0.73), respectively.

conclusionsThe screening accuracy of SARC-F was various based on different diagnostic criteria. There were some limitations for SARC-F, however, considering the higher practicability and specificity for screening sarcopenia in practice, SARC-F was still an effective screening tool for sarcopenia in the elderly. And the screening accuracy of SARC-F needs further exploration when EWGSOP2 is applied as diagnostic criteria and geriatric inpatients are the target participants.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningPrevalenceSarcopeniaSARC-FsarcopeniascreenThe elderly

Identifiers

PMID33491031
PMCPMC12877152
OpenAlexW3087830007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.