Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34898035›Full record

ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2022

Validation of a proxy-reported SARC-F questionnaire for current and retrospective screening of sarcopenia-related functional impairments.

Johannes Maurus, Tobias Terzer, Axel Benner, Sabine Goisser, Annette Eidam, Anja Roth, Maike Janssen, Sonia Jaramillo, Hannes Martin Lorenz, William Micol and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Impact of sarcopenia risk on the functionality of older adults after emergency surgery].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
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

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Johannes MaurusDepartment of Medicine V - Haematology, Oncology and Rheumatology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Tobias TerzerDivision of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Axel BennerDivision of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Sabine GoisserCenter of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, AGAPLESION Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Annette EidamCenter of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, AGAPLESION Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Anja RothCenter of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, AGAPLESION Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Maike JanssenDepartment of Medicine V - Haematology, Oncology and Rheumatology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sonia JaramilloDepartment of Medicine V - Haematology, Oncology and Rheumatology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hannes Martin LorenzDepartment of Medicine V - Haematology, Oncology and Rheumatology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
William MicolCenter of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, AGAPLESION Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Klaus HauerCenter of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, AGAPLESION Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Carsten Müller-TidowDepartment of Medicine V - Haematology, Oncology and Rheumatology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Jürgen M BauerCenter of Geriatric Medicine, Heidelberg University, AGAPLESION Bethanien Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Karin JordanDepartment of Medicine V - Haematology, Oncology and Rheumatology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Nina Rosa NeuendorffDepartment of Medicine V - Haematology, Oncology and Rheumatology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8518-3616
Heidelberg University · DEGerman Cancer Research Center · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe strength, assistance walking, rise from a chair, climb stairs, and falls (SARC-F) questionnaire is a well-established instrument for screening of sarcopenia and sarcopenia-related functional impairments. As it is based on self-reporting, its use precludes patients who are unable to answer the questionnaire as a consequence of severe acute diseases or cognitive impairment. Therefore, we aimed to validate a proxy-reported version of the SARC-F for both ad-hoc as well as retrospective screening for severe sarcopenia-related functional impairments.

methodsPatients aged ≥60 years completed the SARC-F and performed the short physical performance battery (SPPB) at baseline (T1). Proxies in Cohort A gave a simultaneous assessment of the patients' functional status with the proxy-reported SARC-F at T1 and again, retrospectively, after 3 months (T2). Proxies in Cohort B only completed the SARC-F retrospectively at T2. The questionnaires' performances were assessed through sensitivity/specificity analyses and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. For non-inferiority analyses, results of both the patient-reported and proxy-reported SARC-F were correlated with the SPPB total score as well as the results of the chair-rise test subcategory; the respective correlation coefficients were tested against each other.

resultsOne hundred and four patients and 135 proxies participated. Using a SPPB score < 9 points as the reference standard, the proxy-reported SARC-F identified patients at high risk for sarcopenia-related functional impairment with a sensitivity of 0.81 (ad-hoc), 0.88 (retrospective Cohort A), and 0.87 (retrospective Cohort B) as well as a specificity of 0.89 (ad-hoc), 0.78 (retrospective Cohort A), and 0.64 (retrospective Cohort B). Areas under the ROC curves were ≥ 0.9 for the ad-hoc proxy-reported SARC-F and the retrospective proxy-reported SARC-F in both cohorts. The proxy-reported SARC-F showed a non-inferior correlation with the SPPB compared with the patient-reported SARC-F for ad-hoc (P = <0.001) as well as retrospective screening for severe sarcopenia-related functional impairment in both Cohorts A (P = 0.007) and B (P = 0.026).

conclusionsProxy-reported SARC-F is a valid instrument for both ad-hoc as well as retrospective screening for sarcopenia-related functional impairment and could become the standard tool for evaluating this risk in older adults with severe acute disease, for example, in patients with quickly evolving haematological conditions.

Indexed as

SarcopeniaAgedCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesPatient-reported outcomePremorbid conditionProxy-reported outcomeSARC-FSarcopeniaSarcopenia-related functional impairments

Identifiers

PMID34898035
PMCPMC8818621
OpenAlexW4200368030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.