ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
A comparative analysis of sarcopenia screening methods in Thai people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in an outpatient setting.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. 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.
- Calf circumference as a simple tool versus chest-CT derived skeletal muscle index in assessing osteosarcopenia and one-year outcomes in osteoporotic vertebral fractures.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2026Article
- Adenosine Monophosphate-Activated Protein Kinase Activation and Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Complex 1 Inhibition: A Mechanistic Rationale for Anti-Aging Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2025Review
- Constructing the prediction model based on DXA between sarcopenia and BMD in middle-aged and elderly men with T2DM.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Assessment of screening tools for diabetic sarcopenia in type 2 diabetes mellitus: evidence from a scoping review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundType 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is closely linked with sarcopenia. The lack of validated, easy, and effective sarcopenia screening tools for people with T2DM may result in underdiagnosis, delayed interventions, and worsening outcomes. This study evaluated and compared the diagnostic accuracy of various sarcopenia screening tools in T2DM outpatients. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 329 people with T2DM at Phramongkutklao Hospital, Thailand, between December 2023 and November 2024. This study compared eight sarcopenia screening tools. The Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia 2019 (AWGS 2019) criteria served as the reference standard. Sensitivity, Specificity, and diagnostic accuracy were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The optimal cutoffs were identified with the Youden index.
resultsThe prevalence of sarcopenia was 23.7%. Calf circumference showed the highest diagnostic accuracy at standard cutoff (AUC: 0.892), with optimised cutoff points of < 37.0 cm for males and < 36.0 cm for females, and achieved high sensitivity (90.1% for males, 91.1% for females) with acceptable specificity (77.2% for males, 67.8% for females). Neck circumference demonstrated diagnostic utility (AUC: 0.741) with proposed thresholds of < 39.5 cm (males) and < 36.5 cm (females), yielding moderate sensitivity (69.7% for males, 82.2% for females) and acceptable specificity (78.9% for males, 62.6% for females). Questionnaire-based tools showed limited diagnostic accuracy with SARC-CalF performing the best (AUC: 0.789, sensitivity: 48.7%, specificity: 93.2%). Among physical performance tests, handgrip strength was the most accurate (AUC: 0.716), although these tests generally exhibited high sensitivity, but lower specificity.
conclusionCalf circumference was the most effective screening tool for sarcopenia in people with T2DM. Neck circumference emerged as a promising alternative at optimal cutoff values, offering a simple, novel and practice screening tool option. These findings support the implementation of anthropometric measures for sarcopenia screening in clinical settings, particularly in outpatient care.
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.