ArticleOsteoporosis and sarcopenia2025
Optimizing sarcopenia screening in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A ROC curve evaluation of the SARC-F and the SARC-CalF.
Article in Osteoporosis and sarcopenia, 2025. 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.
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Sarcopenia is highly prevalent in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), significantly increasing fall and disability risks. While the Questionnaire composed of "Strength, Assistance in walking, Rising from a chair, Climbing stairs, and Falls" (SARC-F) is commonly used for sarcopenia screening, its diagnostic accuracy in T2DM patients remains unclear. SARC-CalF, an extended version incorporating calf circumference, may enhance screening effectiveness. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability, validity, and diagnostic accuracy of SARC-F and SARC-CalF in older T2DM adults. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 157 T2DM patients aged 60 years and above. Sarcopenia was assessed using both SARC-F and SARC-CalF, with the 2019 Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia criteria serving as the reference standard. Collected data included demographics, muscle mass (via bioelectrical impedance analysis), muscle strength (handgrip and five-time sit-to-stand tests), and physical performance (timed up-and-go test). Reliability, validity, and diagnostic accuracy were analyzed using validated statistical techniques. Results: SARC-F demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.80) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.89), moderate diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.565-0.743) with an optimal cut-off score of 2.5 (sensitivity = 51.4%, specificity = 78.2%). SARC-CalF shows superior diagnostic performance (AUC = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.956-1.000 with higher sensitivity (92%) and specificity (94%). Conclusions: While the SARC-F is a reliable and valid screening tool for T2DM patients, its diagnostic accuracy is limited. SARC-CalF significantly improves screening performance and is preferable for chronic care monitoring.
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.