ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Clinical Validation of the Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment Questionnaire in Community-Dwelling Spanish Older Adults.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: The aim was to analyze the reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment (MSRA) in older adults. (2) Methods: A total of 136 participants (72.24 ± 5.21 years, 68.38% women) took part in the study. The MSRA includes two questionnaires with seven (MSRA-7) and five items (MSRA-5). First, reliability (inter-rater and test-retest) of the Spanish MSRA was studied, and then the total scores were compared with the presence of sarcopenia according to three different diagnostic criteria and with other parameters related to sarcopenia (clinical validation). (3) Results: The analysis showed excellent inter-rater and test-retest reliability. As for the clinical validation, and regardless of the criteria, both questionnaires had a high sensitivity (81.82-88.89% for the MSRA-5 and 90.91-94.44% for the MSRA-7), while the MSRA-5 showed a better specificity (32.00-33.90%) than the MSRA-7 (20.80-22.88%). Predictive positive values ranged from 9.57-17.02% (MSRA-5) and 9.17-15.54% (MSRA-7), while predictive negative values were high for both the MSRA-5 (95.24%) and the MSRA-7 (96.30-96.43%). The accuracy was better for the MSRA-5 (36.03-41.18%) than the MSRA-7 (26.47-32.35%), as well as the area under the curve (0.67-0.76 vs. 0.65-0.73, respectively). Higher MSRA-5 and MSRA-7 total scores significantly correlated with greater muscle strength, quantity and gait speed. (4) Conclusions: The adaptation of the Spanish MSRA questionnaires was successfully performed, and they are reliable and clinically valid tools for assessing sarcopenia.
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.