ArticleJMIRx med2025
Assessment of SARC-F Sensitivity for Probable Sarcopenia Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study.
Article in JMIRx med, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Performance of SARC-F, SARC-CalF, SARC-F + EBM, and Ishii Score for Detecting Sarcopenia in Hospitalised Geriatric Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Enhancing sarcopenia screening in primary care: a machine learning approach using simple physical tests vs. SARC-F in 2,788 community-dwelling older adults.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP2) recommends the use of the 5-item SARC-F (strength, assistance with walking, rising from a chair, climbing stairs, and falls) questionnaire by clinicians to screen for probable sarcopenia. The recommended threshold of ≥4 has low sensitivity and high specificity in identifying probable sarcopenia. While this high threshold is effective in excluding clients without probable sarcopenia, challenges exist in using this screening tool to identify clients with low muscle strength. Objective: This study aims to reassess the use of SARC-F in a primary care clinic for the determination of incidence of probable sarcopenia and to evaluate if a handgrip strength test is necessary for its diagnosis. Methods: We screened 204 patients aged ≥65 years (117 men and 87 women) during routine visits with the SARC-F questionnaire. Probable sarcopenia was defined by EWGSOP2 grip strength cut points (≤27 kg for men and ≤16 kg for women). Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to identify the SARC-F threshold that best balanced sensitivity and specificity. Results: Probable sarcopenia was present in 12% (n=24) of participants. The mean age (73.9, SD 6.2 years) and mean BMI (29.5, SD 5.8 kg/m²) did not differ significantly by sex; however, men showed a higher mean grip strength (36.3, SD 8.1 kg vs 22.4, SD 5.5 kg; P<.001) and lower mean SARC-F scores (0.9, SD 1.7 vs 1.9, SD 2.3; P<.001). A SARC-F cut point of ≥2 yielded an area under the curve of 0.77 (95% CI 0.67-0.88), with sensitivity of 0.78, specificity of 0.75, accuracy of 0.77, positive predictive value of 0.31, and negative predictive value of 0.96. The grip strength differed significantly between screen-positive and screen-negative groups at both the ≥2 and ≥4 thresholds (P<.001). Conclusions: A SARC- F threshold of ≥2 is recommended as an optimal trade-off between sensitivity and specificity for identifying community-dwelling older adults with probable sarcopenia. This threshold is lower than the currently accepted recommendation of ≥4. Our findings promote the recommendations for early detection and treatment by medical professionals following the EWGSOP2 by improving the ability of clinicians to identify individuals with low muscle strength using this screening procedure.
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.