ArticlePloS one2024
Comparison of the utility of SARC-F, SARC-CalF, and calf circumference as screening tools for sarcopenia in patients with osteoporosis.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Screening Performance of Anthropometric Indices and Determination of Optimal Cut-Off Values for Identifying Low Muscle Strength in Hospitalized Geriatric Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Parker Mobility Score as a Screening Tool for Sarcopenia in Older German Adults: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Trial Data.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Identifying risk factors for sarcopenia using machine learning: insights from multimodal data.European geriatric medicine · 2025Article
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
aimPatients with osteoporosis who also have sarcopenia are at a high risk for falls and fractures. Early detection of sarcopenia is crucial for these patients. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of SARC-F, SARC-CalF, and calf circumference (CC) as screening tools for sarcopenia in patients with osteoporosis.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was retrospectively conducted on patients who attended the outpatient clinic for Osteoporosis and Sarcopenia at Kyoto Medical Center. Sarcopenia was determined based on low skeletal muscle mass and weak handgrip strength. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were conducted on SARC-F, SARC-CalF, and CC. The diagnostic utility of these three tools was compared using the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the ROC curves (AUC).
resultsA total of 225 patients (men/women: 33/192) with a median age of 69.0 years (interquartile range: 61.0‒75.0) were enrolled. The prevalence of sarcopenia was found to be 11.6%. CC had the highest sensitivity (80.8%), while SARC-F had the highest specificity (93.0%) for detecting sarcopenia. ROC analysis revealed that all three tools had significant potential for sarcopenia diagnosis, with SARC-CalF having the highest AUC compared to SARC-F and CC (0.753 vs. 0.619 and 0.700). A multivariate logistic regression, incorporating other confounders as explanatory variables, revealed that SARC-CalF was independently related to sarcopenia (odds ratio: 14.80, 95% confidence interval: 3.83-57.30, p < 0.001).
conclusionIn patients with osteoporosis, SARC-CalF is more effective in the early detection of sarcopenia than SARC-F and CC.
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.