Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35477354›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2022

Performance of the SarQoL quality of life tool in a UK population of older people with probable sarcopenia and implications for use in clinical trials: findings from the SarcNet registry.

Miles D Witham, Philip Heslop, Richard M Dodds, Andrew P Clegg, Suzy V Hope, Claire McDonald, David Smithard, Bryony Storey, Ai Lyn Tan, Anna Thornhill and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Validation of the German version of the SarQoLAging clinical and experimental research · 2024
    Article
  6. Sarcopenia.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Miles D WithamAGE Research Group, NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK. Miles.Witham@newcastle.ac.uk.
Philip HeslopAGE Research Group, NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK.
Richard M DoddsAGE Research Group, NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK.
Andrew P CleggAcademic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, University of Leeds, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.
Suzy V HopeCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, and Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK.
Claire McDonaldDepartment of Geriatrics, Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, Gateshead, UK.
David SmithardQueen Elizabeth Hospital, Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust and University of Greenwich, London, UK.
Bryony StoreyDepartment of Geriatrics, Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, Gateshead, UK.
Ai Lyn TanNIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Chapel Allerton Hospital, and Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Anna ThornhillAcademy of Research and Improvement, Solent NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK.
Avan A SayerAGE Research Group, NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5PL, UK.
NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre · GBGateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBQueen Elizabeth Hospital · GBRoyal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust · GBSolent NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Sarcopenia Quality of Life (SarQoL) questionnaire is a disease-specific sarcopenia quality of life tool. We aimed to independently assess SarQoL with a particular focus on its suitability as a clinical trial outcome measure.

methodsWe analysed data from the UK Sarcopenia Network and Registry. Measures of physical performance and lean mass were collected at baseline. SarQoL and the Strength, Assistance, Rise, Climb - Falls (SARC-F) questionnaire (to assess functional ability) were collected at both baseline and six-month follow-up. Global changes in fitness and quality of life at 6 months were elicited on seven-point Likert scales. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Responsiveness (Cohen's d and Guyatt coefficients) and minimum clinically important differences were calculated for participants reporting slight improvement or worsening in their global scores. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlating baseline SarQoL scores with measures of physical performance and functional ability.

resultsWe analysed data from 147 participants, 125 of whom underwent follow up assessment; mean age 78 years; 72 (49%) were women. Internal consistency was good; Cronbach's alpha was 0.944 at baseline and 0.732 at telephone follow-up. Correlation between baseline and follow-up SarQoL was weak (r = 0.27; p = 0.03). The minimum clinically important improvement ranged from 5 to 21 points giving trial sample size estimates of 25-100 participants. SarQoL scores were moderately correlated with handgrip (r = 0.37; p < 0.001), SARC-F (r = - 0.45; p < 0.001), short physical performance battery (r = 0.48; p < 0.001) and 4-m walk speed (r = 0.48; p < 0.001).

conclusionsSarQoL has acceptable performance in older UK participants with probable sarcopenia and is sufficiently responsive for use in clinical trials for sarcopenia.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeSarcopeniaAgedClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHand StrengthHumansMalePsychometricsRegistriesUnited KingdomMinimum clinical important differenceQuality of lifeResponsivenessSarcopeniaValidity

Identifiers

PMID35477354
PMCPMC9043890
OpenAlexW4225080958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.