Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37215395›Full record

ArticleClinical interventions in aging2023

Comparison of Diagnostic Value of the SARC-F and Its Four Modified Versions in Polish Community-Dwelling Older Adults.

Roma Krzymińska-Siemaszko, Ewa Deskur-Śmielecka, Aleksandra Kaluźniak-Szymanowska, Marika Murawiak, Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Evaluating the Discriminative Performance of SARC-F and SARC-CalF in Identifying Functional Impairment in Community-Dwelling Older Adults.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2026
    Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Roma Krzymińska-SiemaszkoDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-6770-7321
Ewa Deskur-ŚmieleckaDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.
Aleksandra Kaluźniak-SzymanowskaDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-2663-5237
Marika MurawiakDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-8799-6896
Katarzyna Wieczorowska-TobisDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-4017-3013
Poznan University of Medical Sciences · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Sarcopenia is associated with adverse outcomes in elderly persons, including functional disability, falls, and even death. Therefore, older adults should be routinely screened for sarcopenia. Due to the unsatisfactory sensitivity of the SARC-F questionnaire, four modified versions have been elaborated: SARC-CalF, SARC-F+EBM, SARC-F+AC, and SARC-CalF+AC. The diagnostic performance of the four modifications of SARC-F has yet to be compared. Materials and Methods: We performed the sensitivity/specificity analysis and compared the overall diagnostic accuracy of the five questionnaires in 260 community-dwelling volunteers aged ≥ 60 yrs from Poland. The study was performed against three reference standards: the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP1), EWGSOP2, and modified EWGSOP2 criteria. Results: The prevalence of sarcopenia based on these criteria was 20.8%, 11.2%, and 17.3%, respectively. Concerning the three reference standards, the sensitivity of SARC-F, SARC-CalF, SARC-F+EBM, SARC-F+AC, and SARC-CalF+AC ranged from 31.5-44.8%, 57.4-65.5%, 48.1-62.1%, 71.4-79.2% and 71.4-79.2%, respectively. The specificity ranged from 86.6-87.4%, 86.1-90.3%, 82.3-84.0%, 69.4-78.2%, and 72.1-79.7%, respectively. The AUCs of SARC-F, SARC-CalF, SARC-F+EBM, SARC-F+AC, and SARC-CalF+AC ranged from 0.643-0.700, 0.757-0.792, 0.740-0.775, 0.767-0.812 and 0.771-0.852, respectively. Conclusion: The SARC-F questionnaire has low diagnostic accuracy, which limits its usefulness as a sarcopenia screening tool. Incorporating two simple anthropometric measurements, ie, arm and calf circumference, notably improves the diagnostic performance of SARC-F. Based on our results, SARC-CalF+AC seems to be the best screening tool for sarcopenia screening in community-dwelling older adults.

Indexed as

SarcopeniaAgedGeriatric AssessmentHumansIndependent LivingMass ScreeningPolandSensitivity and SpecificitySurveys and Questionnairesolder individualsROC analysissarcopeniascreening

Identifiers

PMID37215395
PMCPMC10198270
OpenAlexW4377565077

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.