ArticleThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2024
Exploring the role of body mass index-adjusted calf circumference within the SARC-CalF screening tool among older patients with cancer.
Article in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Different approaches of SARC-tools for Sarcopenia Screening in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A cross-sectional validation study.JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2026Article
- SARC-F and six modified versions: prognostic role for prolonged hospital stay and 1-year mortality in older inpatients.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Skeletal Muscle Mass in Women With Breast Cancer: Evaluation of Agreement Between Different Methods.Journal of nutrition and metabolism · 2026Article
- Review
- Risk of sarcopenia in women with breast cancer: a comparative analysis of screening tools.BMC cancer · 2025Observational
- Association of body mass index-adjusted calf circumference with appendicular skeletal muscle mass and fall risk in older adults.European geriatric medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess and compare the frequency of positive scores using unadjusted SARC-CalF with the scores derived from SARC-CalF after adjusting calf circumference (CC) for body mass index (BMI). The secondary aim was to assess the prognostic value of SARC-CalF after BMI adjustment, for length of hospital stay (LOS) and mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsThis secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study, included both outpatients and inpatients of an oncology unit hospital in Brazil. MEASUREMENTS: BMI and CC were measured. Patients with excess weight had their CC adjusted for BMI by subtracting 3 cm, 7 cm, and 12 cm from the unadjusted CC values for respective BMI categories. SARC-CalF was used to screen for sarcopenia. Scores ≥11 were indicative of sarcopenia, considering both unadjusted and BMI-adjusted CC values. Clinical outcomes included prolonged LOS and both short- and long-term mortality.
resultsOur study included 206 subjects, with a median age of 69 years, and the majority were males (52.1%). The prevalence of low CC increased from 65% to 84% after BMI adjustment. Positive unadjusted SARC-CalF scores (≥11) were observed in 51% of the population and this prevalence increased to 65% using BMI-adjusted SARC-CalF criteria (≥11). Higher scores on BMI-adjusted SARC-CalF but not unadjusted SARC-CalF were independently associated with prolonged LOS [
conclusionBMI-adjusted SARC-CalF may be a promising strategy to enhance the detection of older patients with cancer and excess weight at risk of sarcopenia, and it may serve a dual role as a prognostic tool, as it was independently associated with prolonged LOS and mortality.
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.