Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of six screening methods for sarcopenia among rural community-dwelling older adults: a diagnostic accuracy study

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
European Geriatric Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

  • 2 Altmetric

Key summary points

AbstractSection Aim

To determine the diagnostic efficacy of six screening tools for sarcopenia.

AbstractSection Findings

44.5% were diagnosed as sarcopenia in men and 39.1% in women. SarSA-Mod had a high screening value after redefining the cutoff value, and the Ishii test may be our better screening tool for assessing sarcopenia. The SARC-F’s modified versions showed significantly increased sensitivity.

AbstractSection Message

The Ishii test is the best tool among the six screening tools for assessing sarcopenia in the study.

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this analysis was to determine the diagnostic efficacy of the Ishii test, SarSA-Mod, SARC-F, SARC-Calf, SARC-F+AC, and SARC-Calf+AC for screening for sarcopenia among rural community-dwelling older adults.

Methods

The AWGS 2019 diagnostic criteria was a diagnostic reference for sarcopenia. There were six screening tools whose accuracy was determined through the use of metrics, including specificity, sensitivity, negative and positive predictive values, and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Results

The study included 551 participants (304 women, age 70.9 ± 4.9 years). The prevalence of sarcopenia was 44.5% in men and 39.1% in women. In males, the sensitivity/specificity of the Ishii test, SarSA-Mod, SARC-F, SARC-Calf, SARC-F+AC, and SARC-Calf+AC screening sarcopenia were 87.3%/65.7%, 98.2%/21.9%, 6.4%/98.5%, 28.2%/91.2%, 33.6%/83.9%, and 84.6%/43.8%, and in females, they were 68.1%/82.2, 100%/23.2%, 16.0%/90.3%, 35.3%/84.3%, 58.8%/61.1%, and 89.9%/42.2%, respectively. In males, the area under the curves of the Ishii test, SarSA-Mod, SARC-F, SARC-Calf, SARC-F+AC, and SARC-Calf+AC were 0.846 (95% CI 0.795–0.889), 0.800 (95% CI 0.745–0.848), 0.581 (95% CI 0.516–0.643), 0.706 (95% CI 0.645–0.762), 0.612 (95% CI 0.548–0.673), and 0.707 (95% CI 0.646–0.763), respectively, and in females, they were 0.824 (95% CI 0.776–0.865), 0.845 (95% CI 0.799–0.883), 0.581 (95% CI 0.524–0.637), 0.720 (95% CI 0.666–0.770), 0.632 (95% CI 0.575–0.686), and 0.715 (95% CI 0.661–0.765), respectively.

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrate that the overall accuracy of the Ishii test was best among the six screening tools for sarcopenia screening in rural community-dwelling older adults.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chen LK, Woo J, Assantachai P, Auyeung TW, Chou MY, Iijima K, Jang HC, Kang L, Kim M, Kim S et al (2020) Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia: 2019 consensus update on sarcopenia diagnosis and treatment. J Am Med Dir Assoc 21(3):300-307.e2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J et al (2019) Writing Group for the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 (EWGSOP2), and the Extended Group for EWGSOP2. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing 48(1):16–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yoshimura N, Muraki S, Oka H et al (2017) Is osteoporosis a predictor for future sarcopenia or vice versa? Four-year observations between the second and third ROAD study surveys. Osteoporos Int 28(1):189–199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chan LC, Yang YC, Lin HC et al (2021) Nutrition counseling is associated with less sarcopenia in diabetes: a cross-sectional and retrospective cohort study. Nutrition 91–92:111269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Xu HQ, Shi JP, Shen C et al (2018) Sarcopenia-related features and factors associated with low muscle mass, weak muscle strength, and reduced function in Chinese rural residents: a cross-sectional study. Arch Osteoporos 14(1):2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee JH, Lee HS, Cho AR, Lee YJ, Kwon YJ (2021) Relationship between muscle mass index and LDL cholesterol target levels: analysis of two studies of the Korean population. Atherosclerosis 325:1–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Petermann-Rocha F, Balntzi V, Gray SR, Lara J, Ho FK, Pell JP, Celis-Morales C (2022) Global prevalence of sarcopenia and severe sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 13(1):86–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dent E, Morley JE et al (2018) International Clinical Practice Guidelines for Sarcopenia (ICFSR): screening, diagnosis and management. J Nutr Health Aging 22(10):1148–1161

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bruyere O, Beaudart C, Reginster JY et al (2016) Assessment of muscle mass, muscle strength and physical performance in clinical practice: an international survey. Eur Geriatr Med. 7(3):243–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Sayer AA (2019) Sarcopenia. Lancet. 393:2636–2646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Malmstrom TK, Morley JE (2013) SARC-F: a simple questionnaire to rapidly diagnose sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc 14(8):531–532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Barbosa-Silva TG, Menezes AM, Bielemann RM, Malmstrom TK, Gonzalez MC, Grupo de Estudos em Composição Corporal e Nutrição (COCONUT) (2016) Enhancing SARC-F: Improving Sarcopenia Screening in the Clinical Practice. J Am Med Dir Assoc 17(12):1136–1141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhou J, Li T, Chen X, Wang M, Jiang W, Jia H (2022) Comparison of the diagnostic value of SARC-F and its three modified versions for screening sarcopenia in Chinese community-dwelling older adults. J Nutr Health Aging 26(1):77–83

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ishii S, Tanaka T, Shibasaki K, Ouchi Y, Kikutani T, Higashiguchi T, Obuchi SP, Ishikawa-Takata K, Hirano H, Kawai H, Tsuji T, Iijima K (2014) Development of a simple screening test for sarcopenia in older adults. Geriatr Gerontol Int 14(Suppl 1):93–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shafiee G, Ostovar A, Maleki Birjandi S, Nabipour I, Larijani B, Heshmat R (2021) Development of a simple and practical screening tool for detection of sarcopenia in older people: The Bushehr Elderly Health program. Front Med (Lausanne) 8:655759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Woo J, Leung J, Morley JE (2014) Validating the SARC-F: a suitable community screening tool for sarcopenia? J Am Med Dir Assoc 15(9):630–634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Parra-Rodríguez L, Szlejf C, García-González AI, Malmstrom TK, Cruz-Arenas E, Rosas-Carrasco O (2016) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Spanish-language version of the SARC-F to assess sarcopenia in Mexican community-dwelling older adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc 17(12):1142–1146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim S, Kim M, Won CW (2018) Validation of the Korean version of the SARC-F questionnaire to assess sarcopenia: Korean frailty and aging cohort study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 19(1):40-45.e1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bahat G, Yilmaz O, Kılıç C, Oren MM, Karan MA (2018) Performance of SARC-F in regard to sarcopenia definitions, muscle mass and functional measures. J Nutr Health Aging 22(8):898–903

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kurita N, Wakita T, Kamitani T, Wada O, Mizuno K (2019) SARC-F validation and SARC-F+EBM derivation in musculoskeletal disease: the SPSS-OK study. J Nutr Health Aging 23(8):732–738

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chen X, Hou L, Zhang Y, Luo S, Dong B (2021) The accuracy of the Ishii score chart in predicting sarcopenia in the elderly community in Chengdu. BMC Geriatr 21(1):296

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Erdogan T, Catikkas NM, Oren MM, Kılıc C, Karan MA, Bahat G (2022) Ishii test for screening sarcopenia: performance in community-dwelling older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res 34(4):785–791

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Akın S, Mucuk S, Öztürk A, Mazıcıoğlu M, Göçer Ş, Arguvanlı S, Şafak ED (2015) Muscle function-dependent sarcopenia and cut-off values of possible predictors in community-dwelling Turkish elderly: calf circumference, midarm muscle circumference and walking speed. Eur J Clin Nutr 69(10):1087–1090

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cao L, Chen S, Zou C, Ding X, Gao L, Liao Z, Liu G, Malmstrom TK, Morley JE, Flaherty JH, An Y, Dong B (2014) A pilot study of the SARC-F scale on screening sarcopenia and physical disability in the Chinese older people. J Nutr Health Aging 18(3):277–283

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Linden A (2006) Measuring diagnostic and predictive accuracy in disease management: an introduction to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. J Eval Clin Pract 12(2):132–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44(3):837–845

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Beaudart C, Locquet M, Bornheim S, Reginster JY, Bruyère O (2018) French translation and validation of the sarcopenia screening tool SARC-F. Eur Geriatr Med 9(1):29–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sánchez-Rodríguez D, Marco E, Dávalos-Yerovi V, López-Escobar J, Messaggi-Sartor M, Barrera C, Ronquillo-Moreno N, Vázquez-Ibar O, Calle A, Inzitari M, Piotrowicz K, Duran X, Escalada F, Muniesa JM, Duarte E (2019) Translation and validation of the Spanish version of the SARC-F questionnaire to assess sarcopenia in older people. J Nutr Health Aging 23(6):518–524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Drey M, Ferrari U, Schraml M, Kemmler W, Schoene D, Franke A, Freiberger E, Kob R, Sieber C (2020) German version of SARC-F: translation, adaption, and validation. J Am Med Dir Assoc 21(6):747-751.e1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zasadzka E, Pieczyńska A, Trzmiel T, Pawlaczyk M (2020) Polish translation and validation of the SARC-F tool for the assessment of sarcopenia. Clin Interv Aging 15:567–574

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Cohen JF, Korevaar DA, Altman DG et al (2016) STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open 6(11):e012799

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Hajian-Tilaki K (2013) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for medical diagnostic test evaluation. Caspian J Intern Med 4(2):627–635

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Leeflang MM, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM (2013) Variation of a test’s sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence. CMAJ 185(11):E537–E544

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Locquet M, Beaudart C, Reginster JY, Petermans J, Bruyère O (2017) Comparison of the performance of five screening methods for sarcopenia. Clin Epidemiol 10:71–82

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM et al (2010) European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European Working Group on sarcopenia in older people. Age Ageing 39(4):412–423

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Krzymińska-Siemaszko R, Deskur-Śmielecka E, Kaluźniak-Szymanowska A, Lewandowicz M, Wieczorowska-Tobis K (2020) Comparison of diagnostic performance of SARC-F and its two modified versions (SARC-CalF and SARC-F+EBM) in community-dwelling older adults from Poland. Clin Interv Aging 15:583–594

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Krzymińska-Siemaszko R, Deskur-Śmielecka E, Kaluźniak-Szymanowska A, Murawiak M, Wieczorowska-Tobis K (2023) Comparison of diagnostic value of the SARC-F and its four modified versions in Polish community-dwelling older adults. Clin Interv Aging 18:783–797

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Chen M, Lei X, Zhu T, Li Q, Chen X (2022) Evaluation of the accuracy of six simple screening tools for sarcopenia in schizophrenic patients. J Nutr Health Aging 26(6):571–575

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lin X, Li M, Li Z, Zhu L, Liu L, Chen X (2021) Evaluation of four methods for the assessment of sarcopenia in older adults in nursing homes. J Nutr Health Aging 25(9):1119–1123

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lian R, Jiang G, Liu Q, Shi Q, Luo S, Lu J, Yang M (2023) Validated tools for screening sarcopenia: a scoping review. J Am Med Dir Assoc 24(11):1645–1654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Danone Dietary Nutrition Research and Education Fund [grant number DIC2019-10]. The supporting source had no involvement or restrictions regarding publication.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yating Peng and Liangchuan Zhang contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, Southwest Medical University, Sichuan, Luzhou, China

    Yating Peng, Liangchuan Zhang, Yuan Kong, Xue Zhang, Zetian Li & Hong Jia

  2. Collaborating Center of the National Institute of Health Data Sciences of China, Southwest Medical University, Sichuan, Luzhou, China

    Hong Jia

Authors
  1. Yating Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liangchuan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuan Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xue Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zetian Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hong Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YTP and LCZ performed the statistical analysis, drafted the manuscript. YK, XZ, and TZL performed the investigation and data collection. HJ supervised the study and reviewed the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hong Jia.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

The study was conducted ethically in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University (approval no.: KY2023094).

Informed consent

All participants gave written informed consent prior to participating in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 89 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peng, Y., Zhang, L., Kong, Y. et al. Comparison of six screening methods for sarcopenia among rural community-dwelling older adults: a diagnostic accuracy study. Eur Geriatr Med (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-024-00955-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-024-00955-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation