Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Comparative accuracy of five screening tools for sarcopenia in community older adults:a systematic review and a network meta-analysis

Jie Li, Yujie Yang, Menglin Gao, Huaihong Yuan
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.16.24305890
Jie Li
1Department of Nephrology, Kidney Research Institute, West China, Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
2West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yujie Yang
1Department of Nephrology, Kidney Research Institute, West China, Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
2West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Menglin Gao
1Department of Nephrology, Kidney Research Institute, West China, Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
2West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Huaihong Yuan
1Department of Nephrology, Kidney Research Institute, West China, Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
2West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: yuanhuaihong{at}wchscu.cn
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Sarcopenia, a prevalent and serious condition among community older adults, often remains unnoticed. The use of systematic screening has the potential to enhance detection rates; however, there is currently no consensus on the most effective approach. This study ai med to assess the diagnostic test accuracy of five simple sarcopenia screening tools and determine which test has the highest accuracy.

Objective To assess and compare the accuracy of five screening tools for sarcopenia in community older adults.

Design A systematic review and a network meta analysis.

Methods A systematic search was conducted in various databases including Pubmed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and Sinomed up to September 2023. Studies reporting on the accuracy of diagnostic testing for sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults using one or more of the following sarcopenia screening tools were included: Sarcopenia Simple Five-Item Rati ng Scale (SARC-F), SARC-F combined with calf circumference (SA RC-CalF), SARC-F combined with older adults and BMI (SARC-F+ EBM), Mini sarcopenia risk assessment-5 (MSRA-5), and Mini sarcopenia risk assessment-7 (MSRA-7). The reference standard was the Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia (AWGS), the European Working Group on Sarcopenia on Older People (EWGSOP), the Foundation for National Institutes of Health (FNIH), or the International Working Group on Sarcopenia (IWGS). Random-effects bivariate binomial model meta-analyses, meta-regressions and a network meta-analysis were used to estimate the pooled and relative sensitivities and specificities.

Results We identified and evaluated 22 papers focused on SARC-F, S ARC-CalF, MSRA-5, and MSRA-7. Traditional meta-analysis sorting results showed summary sensitivities of 0.25, 0.59, 0.43, 0.82, and 0.51, summary specificities of 0.94, 0.82, 0.81, 0.39, and 0.85, summary AUC of 0.80, 0.76, 0.70, 0.68, and 0.75, and summary DOR of 5, 7, 3, 3, and 6. The network meta-analysis ranking results showed that MRSA-5 had the highest sensitivity (92.27) and SARC-F had the highest specificity (99.81) under the cumulative ranking.

Linking evidence to action The MSRA can be used as a tool for screening sarcopenia in community older adults, while the SARC-F can be used for first-time diagnosis of sarcopenia in this population. However, it is important to interpret the results with caution due to the variability among different studies analyzing the accuracy of this diagnostic test. Future research should focus on obtaining additional evidence from large sample sizes and high-quality studies.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

N/A

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted April 17, 2024.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparative accuracy of five screening tools for sarcopenia in community older adults:a systematic review and a network meta-analysis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Comparative accuracy of five screening tools for sarcopenia in community older adults:a systematic review and a network meta-analysis
Jie Li, Yujie Yang, Menglin Gao, Huaihong Yuan
medRxiv 2024.04.16.24305890; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.16.24305890
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Comparative accuracy of five screening tools for sarcopenia in community older adults:a systematic review and a network meta-analysis
Jie Li, Yujie Yang, Menglin Gao, Huaihong Yuan
medRxiv 2024.04.16.24305890; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.16.24305890

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Geriatric Medicine
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (349)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Allergy and Immunology (668)
  • Anesthesia (181)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (2648)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (316)
  • Dermatology (223)
  • Emergency Medicine (399)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (942)
  • Epidemiology (12228)
  • Forensic Medicine (10)
  • Gastroenterology (759)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (4103)
  • Geriatric Medicine (387)
  • Health Economics (680)
  • Health Informatics (2657)
  • Health Policy (1005)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (985)
  • Hematology (363)
  • HIV/AIDS (851)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13695)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (797)
  • Medical Education (399)
  • Medical Ethics (109)
  • Nephrology (436)
  • Neurology (3882)
  • Nursing (209)
  • Nutrition (577)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (739)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (695)
  • Oncology (2030)
  • Ophthalmology (585)
  • Orthopedics (240)
  • Otolaryngology (306)
  • Pain Medicine (250)
  • Palliative Medicine (75)
  • Pathology (473)
  • Pediatrics (1115)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (466)
  • Primary Care Research (452)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3432)
  • Public and Global Health (6527)
  • Radiology and Imaging (1403)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (814)
  • Respiratory Medicine (871)
  • Rheumatology (409)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (410)
  • Sports Medicine (342)
  • Surgery (448)
  • Toxicology (53)
  • Transplantation (185)
  • Urology (165)