ArticleFrontiers in aging2026
Measurement properties of the SARC-T: test-retest reliability, agreement and minimal detectable change in older adults with sarcopenia.
Article in Frontiers in aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: The Sarcopenia Optoelectronic Chair-Rise Velocity Test (SARC-T) has been proposed as an instrumented chair-rise measure related to physical function in sarcopenia; however, its test-retest measurement properties have not been established. This study evaluated the test-retest reliability, agreement, measurement error and minimal detectable change at the 95% confidence level (MDC95) of the SARC-T in older adults with sarcopenia. Methods: An observational methodological test-retest study was conducted in 55 institutionalized older adults with sarcopenia diagnosed according to EWGSOP2 criteria. The SARC-T was assessed in two sessions separated by 5 days under standardized conditions. The primary outcome was the best mean propulsive velocity recorded during the concentric phase. Test-retest reliability was assessed using ICC (3,1), Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), standard error of measurement (SEM), MDC95, Bland-Altman analysis, and a linear mixed-effects model. Results: Test-retest reliability was high (ICC = 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.96; CCC = 0.93, 95% CI 0.86-0.96). Measurement error was low (SEM = 0.017 m/s), and MDC95 was 0.05 m/s. Bland-Altman analysis showed a small but statistically significant mean bias of +0.008 m/s (p = 0.015), with 95% limits of agreement from -0.042 to +0.058 m/s, and additional analysis showed statistically significant proportional bias (slope = 0.161; p = 0.009). A small systematic session effect was also observed in the mixed-effects model (β = +0.008 m/s; 95% CI 0.002-0.018; p = 0.012). Conclusion: Under the standardized conditions of the present protocol, the SARC-T showed high test-retest reliability and low measurement error; however, the presence of statistically significant mean and proportional bias indicates that agreement is not fully uniform across the measurement range and should be interpreted with caution, particularly at the individual level. The MDC95 may help interpret whether longitudinal changes in mean propulsive velocity are likely to exceed measurement-related fluctuation. These findings should be considered within the context of this specific population of institutionalized older adults with 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.