Skip to main content

Screening Accuracy of SARC-F for Sarcopenia in the Elderly: A Diagnostic Meta-Analysis

The journal of nutrition, health & aging volume 25, pages 172–182 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Sarcopenia is an age-related disease, which is characterized by a decline in muscle mass and function. It is one of the most important health issues in the elderly and often leads to a high rate and variety of adverse outcomes.

Objectives

To evaluate the screening accuracy of SARC-F for sarcopenia in the elderly.

Design

We conducted a meta-analysis using articles available in 6 databases including PubMed (Medline), Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database (CNKI), and Wanfang databases from inception to May 2020. Participants: Adults aged 60 years and older.

Measurements

Sarcopenia was defined by EWGSOP2, EWGSOP, AWGS, FNIH and IWGS. Two authors independently extracted data based on predefined criteria. Where data were available we calculated pooled summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) based on different criteria using the hierarchical logistic regression modeling including bivariate modeling and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) modeling.

Results

We included 20 studies, with the prevalence of sarcopenia ranging from 6.42% to 21.56%. The number of the literatures using EWGSOP, EWGSOP2, AWGS, IWGS and FNIH as diagnostic criteria was 13, 4, 13, 8, 7, respectively. Bivariate analysis yielded a pooled sensitivity of 32% (95%CI: 19%–47%), 77% (95%CI: 49%–92%), 27% (95%CI: 16%–42%), 39% (95%CI: 27%–52%), 35% (95%CI: 23%–49%) and a pooled specificity of 86% (95%CI:77%–92%), 63% (95%CI: 43%–79%), 91% (95%CI: 85%–95%), 86% (95%CI: 76%–92%), 89% (95%CI: 81%–93%), respectively. The area under the HSROC curve were 0.68 (95%CI: 0.64–0.72), 0.75 (95%CI: 0.71–0.78), 0.73 (95%CI: 0.69–0.77), 0.67 (95%CI: 0.62–0.71), 0.70 (95%CI: 0.65–0.73), respectively.

Conclusions

The screening accuracy of SARC-F was various based on different diagnostic criteria. There were some limitations for SARC-F, however, considering the higher practicability and specificity for screening sarcopenia in practice, SARC-F was still an effective screening tool for sarcopenia in the elderly. And the screening accuracy of SARC-F needs further exploration when EWGSOP2 is applied as diagnostic criteria and geriatric inpatients are the target participants.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

References

  1. Beard JR, Officer A, de Carvalho IA, Sadana R, Pot AM, Michel JP et al. The World report on ageing and health: A policy framework for healthy ageing. Lancet 2016;387:2145–2154. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00516-4.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyere O, Cederholm T et al. Sarcopenia: Revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing 2019;48:16–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afyl69.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ethgen O, Beaudart C, Buckinx F, Bruyere O, Reginster JY. The future prevalence of sarcopenia in europe: A claim for public health action. Calcif Tissue hit 2017;100:229–234. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-016-0220-9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brioche T, Pagano AF, Py G, Chopard A. Muscle wasting and aging: Experimental models, fatty infiltrations, and prevention. Mol Aspects Med 2016;50:56–87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mam.2016.04.006.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Morley JE. Frailty and sarcopenia in elderly. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2016;128:439–445. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-016-1087-5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F, et al. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing 2010;39:412–423. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afq034.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fielding RA, Vellas B, Evans WJ, Bhasin S, Morley JE, Newman AB, et al. Sarcopenia: An undiagnosed condition in older adults. Current consensus definition: Prevalence, etiology, and consequences. International working group on sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2011;12:249–256. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2011.01.003.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen LK, Liu LK, Woo J, Assantachai P, Auyeung TW, Bahyah KS, et al. Sarcopenia in Asia: Consensus report of the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2014;15:95–101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2013.11.025.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Studenski SA, Peters KW, Alley DE, Cawthon PM, McLean RR, Harris TB, et al. The FNTH sarcopenia project: Rationale, study description, conference recommendations, and final estimates. J Gerontol A Biol Sei Med Sei 2014;69:547–558. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glu010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Malmstrom TK, Miller DK, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Morley JE. SARC-F: A symptom score to predict persons with sarcopenia at risk for poor functional outcomes. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2016;7:28–36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12048.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dent E, Morley JE, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Arai H, Kritchevsky SB, Guralnik J, et al. International clinical practice guidelines for sarcopenia (ICFSR): Screening, diagnosis and management. J Nutr Health Aging 2018;22:1148–1161. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/sl2603-018-1139-9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ha YC, Won WC, Kim M, Chun KJ, Yoo JI. SARC-F as a useful tool for screening sarcopenia in elderly patients with hip fractures. J Nutr Health Aging 2020;24:78–82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-019-1307-6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Woo J, Leung J, Morley JE. Validating the SARC-F: A suitable community screening tool for sarcopenia? J Am Med Dir Assoc 2014;15:630–634. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2014.04.021.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ida S, Kaneko R, Murata K. SARC-F for screening of sarcopenia among older adults: A meta-analysis of screening test accuracy. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2018;19:685–689. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2018.04.001.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Deeks JJBP, Gatsonis C, 2013. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy, Version 1.0.0. London, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration. https://methods.cochrane.org/sdt/handbook-dta-reviews. Accessed June 12, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–536. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539–1558. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM, Montori VM, de Vet HC, van der Windt DA, et al. Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: Didactic guidelines. Bmc Med Res Methodol 2002;2:9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-2-9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Suh CH, Park SH. Successful publication of systematic review and Meta-Analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:5–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.1.5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:882–893. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.016.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bahat G, Oren MM, Yilmaz O, Kilic C, Aydin K, Karan MA. Comparing SARC-F with SARC-CalF to screen sarcopenia in community living older adults. J Nutr Health Aging 2018;22:1034–1038. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/sl2603-018-1072-y.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Barbosa-Silva TG, Menezes AM, Bielemann RM, Malmstrom TK, Gonzalez MC. Enhancing SARC-F: Improving sarcopenia screening in the clinical practice. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2016;17:1136–1141. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2016.08.004.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ida S, Murata K, Nakadachi D, Ishihara Y, Imataka K, Uchida A, et al. Development of a Japanese version of the SARC-F for diabetic patients: An examination of reliability and validity. Aging Clin Exp Res 2017;29:935–942. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-016-0668-5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kemmler W, Sieber C, Freiberger E, von Stengel S. The SARC-F questionnaire: Diagnostic overlap with established sarcopenia definitions in older german men with sarcopenia. Gerontology 2017;63:411–416. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000477935.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kera T, Kawai H, Hirano H, Kojima M, Watanabe Y, Motokawa K, et al. SARC-F: A validation study with community-dwelling older Japanese adults. Geriatr Gerontol hit 2019;19:1172–1178. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.13768.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kim S, Kim M, Won CW. Validation of the korean version of the SARC-F questionnaire to assess sarcopenia: Korean frailty and aging cohort study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2018;19:40–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2017.07.006.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Krzyminska-Siemaszko R, Tobis S, Lewandowicz M, Wieczorowska-Tobis K. Comparison of four sarcopenia screening questionnaires in community-dwelling older adults from Poland using six sets of international diagnostic criteria of sarcopenia. Plos One 2020;15:e231847. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231847.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Locquet M, Beaudart C, Reginster JY, Petermans J, Bruyere O. Comparison of the performance of five screening methods for sarcopenia. Clin Epidemiol 2018;10:71–82. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S148638.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Parra-Rodriguez L, Szlejf C, Garcia-Gonzalez AI, Malmstrom TK, Cruz-Arenas E, Rosas-Carrasco O. 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 2016;17:1142–1146. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2016.09.008.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sanchez-Rodriguez D, Marco E, Davalos-Yerovi V, Lopez-Escobar J, Messaggi-Sartor M, Barrera C, et al. Translation and validation of the Spanish version of the SARC-F questionnaire to assess sarcopenia in older people. J Nutr Health Aging 2019;23:518–524. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/sl2603-019-1204-z.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Yang M, Lu J, Jiang J, Zeng Y, Tang H. Comparison of four sarcopenia screening tools in nursing home residents. Aging Clin Exp Res 2019;31:1481–1489. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/S40520-018-1083-X.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Drey M, Ferrari U, Schraml M, Kemmler W, Schoene D, Franke A, et al. German version of SARC-F: Translation, adaption, and validation. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2020;21:747–751. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2019.12.011.

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Kera T, Kawai H, Hirano H, Kojima M, Watanabe Y, Motokawa K, et al. Limitations of SARC-F in the diagnosis of sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2020 87:103959. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2019.103959.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Li M, Kong Y, Chen H, Chu A, Song G, Cui Y. Accuracy and prognostic ability of the SARC-F questionnaire and Ishii’s score in the screening of sarcopenia in geriatric inpatients. Braz J Med Biol Res 2019;52:e8204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1414-431X20198204.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mienche M, Setiati S, Setyohadi B, Kurniawan J, Laksmi PW, Ariane A, et al. Diagnostic performance of calf circumference, thigh circumference, and SARC-F questionnaire to identify sarcopenia in elderly compared to asian working group for sarcopenia’s diagnostic standard. Acta Medlndones 2019;51:117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Yang M, Hu X, Xie L, Zhang L, Zhou J, Lin J, et al. Comparing mini sarcopenia risk assessment with SARC-F for screening sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling older adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2019;20:53–57. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2018.04.012.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Li M, Song GQ, Wang XL, Shun X, Zhang Y, Cui Y. Validity and prognostic predictive ability of Strength, Assistance with walking, Rise from a chair, Climb stairs and Falls sarcopenia score in the hospitalized elderly. Chin J Prac Nurs 2018;34:832–836. doi: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.l672-7088.2018.11.007.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Yang M, Lu J, Jiang J, Zeng Y, Tang H. Comparison of four sarcopenia screening tools in nursing home residents. Aging Clin Exp Res 2019;31:1481–1489. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/S40520-018-1083-X.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rolland Y, Dupuy C, Abellan VKG, Cesari M, Vellas B, Faruch M, et al. Sarcopenia screened by the SARC-F questionnaire and physical performances of elderly women: A Cross-Sectional study. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2017;18:848–852. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2017.05.010.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Papadopoulou SK, Tsintavis P, Potsaki P, Papandreou D. Differences in the prevalence of sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling, nursing home and hospitalized individuals. A systematic review and Meta-Analysis. J Nutr Health Aging 2020;24:83–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-019-1267-x.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Locquet M, Beaudart C, Petermans J, Reginster JY, Bruyere O. EWG S OP 2 versus EWGSOP1: Impact on the prevalence of sarcopenia and its major health consequences. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2019;20:384–385. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2018.11.027.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Reiss J, Iglseder B, Alzner R, Mayr-Pirker B, Pirich C, Kassmann H, et al. Consequences of applying the new EWGSOP2 guideline instead of the former EWGSOP guideline for sarcopenia case finding in older patients. Age Ageing 2019;48:719–724. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afz035.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Sayer AA. Sarcopenia. Lancet 2019;393:2636–2646. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31138-9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Liu P, Hao Q, Hai S, Wang H, Cao L, Dong B. Sarcopenia as a predictor of all-cause mortality among community-dwelling older people: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Maturitas 2017;103:16–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.04.007.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Zhang X, Zhang W, Wang C, Tao W, Dou Q, Yang Y. Sarcopenia as a predictor of hospitalization among older people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Bmc Geriatr 2018;18:188. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/sl2877-018-0878-0.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Zhao Y, Zhang Y, Hao Q, Ge M, Dong B. Sarcopenia and hospital-related outcomes in the old people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging Clin Exp Res 2019;31:5–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-018-0931-z.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bahat G, Yilmaz O, Oren MM, Karan MA, Reginster JY, Bruyere O, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the SARC-F to assess sarcopenia: Methodological report from European Union Geriatric Medicine Society Sarcopenia Special Interest Group. Eur Geriatr Med 2018;9:23–28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-017-0003-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding: Priority Discipline Development Program of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (General Office, the People’s Government of Jiangsu Province (2018) No.87), the Key Discipline Program of Jiangsu Province during the 13th Five-Year Plan (Teaching and Research Office, the People’s Government of Jiangsu Province (2016) No. 9).

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors are co-first author.

Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing, Nanjing Medical University, 140 Hanzhong Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, China, 211166

    J.-L. Lu, L.-Y. Ding, Qin Xu, Shu-qin Zhu & H.-X. Hua

  2. Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

    X.-Y. Xu

  3. Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China

    L. Chen & H. Xu

Authors
  1. J.-L. Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L.-Y. Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qin Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shu-qin Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. X.-Y. Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H.-X. Hua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. L. Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. H. Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Qin Xu or Shu-qin Zhu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that no competing interest.

Ethical Standards: This study did not include any animal or human experiments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lu, JL., Ding, LY., Xu, Q. et al. Screening Accuracy of SARC-F for Sarcopenia in the Elderly: A Diagnostic Meta-Analysis. J Nutr Health Aging 25, 172–182 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-020-1471-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-020-1471-8

Key words

  • The elderly
  • sarcopenia
  • screen
  • SARC-F