Sarcopenia Risk Evaluation in a Sample of Hospitalized Elderly Men and Women: Combined Use of the Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment (MSRA) and the SARC-F.
muscle strength
physical limitations
sarcopenia
screening
Journal
Nutrients
ISSN: 2072-6643
Titre abrégé: Nutrients
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101521595
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Feb 2021
16 Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
20
01
2021
revised:
05
02
2021
accepted:
12
02
2021
entrez:
6
3
2021
pubmed:
7
3
2021
medline:
20
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
SARC-F and Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment (MSRA) questionnaires have been proposed as screening tools to identify patients at risk of sarcopenia. The aim of this study is to test the use of SARC-F and MSRA, alone and combined, as a pre-screening tool for sarcopenia in geriatric inpatients. 152 subjects, 94 men and 58 women, aged 70 to 94, underwent muscle mass evaluation by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), muscle strength evaluation by handgrip, and completed the MSRA, SARC-F and Activity of daily living (ADL) questionnaires. 66 subjects (43.4%) were classified as sarcopenic according to the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 (EWGSOP2) criteria. The 7-item SARC-F and MRSA and 5-item MSRA showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.666 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.542-0.789), 0.730 (95% CI: 0.617-0.842) and 0.710 (95% CI: 0.593-0.827), respectively. The optimal cut-off points for sarcopenia detection were determined for each questionnaire using the Youden index method. The newly calculated cut-off points were ≤25 and ≤40 for MSRA 7- and 5-items, respectively. The ideal cut-off for the SARC-F was a score ≥3. Applying this new cut-off in our study population, sensitivity and specificity of the 7-item MSRA were 0.757 and 0.651, and 0.688 and 0.679 for the 5-item MSRA, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of SARC-F were 0.524 and 0.765, respectively. The combined use of the 7-item SARC-F and MSRA improved the accuracy in sarcopenia diagnosis, with a specificity and sensitivity of 1.00 and 0.636. 7-item SARC-F and MSRA may be co-administered in hospital wards as an easy, feasible, first-line tool to identify sarcopenic subjects.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
SARC-F and Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment (MSRA) questionnaires have been proposed as screening tools to identify patients at risk of sarcopenia. The aim of this study is to test the use of SARC-F and MSRA, alone and combined, as a pre-screening tool for sarcopenia in geriatric inpatients.
METHODS
METHODS
152 subjects, 94 men and 58 women, aged 70 to 94, underwent muscle mass evaluation by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), muscle strength evaluation by handgrip, and completed the MSRA, SARC-F and Activity of daily living (ADL) questionnaires.
RESULTS
RESULTS
66 subjects (43.4%) were classified as sarcopenic according to the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 (EWGSOP2) criteria. The 7-item SARC-F and MRSA and 5-item MSRA showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.666 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.542-0.789), 0.730 (95% CI: 0.617-0.842) and 0.710 (95% CI: 0.593-0.827), respectively. The optimal cut-off points for sarcopenia detection were determined for each questionnaire using the Youden index method. The newly calculated cut-off points were ≤25 and ≤40 for MSRA 7- and 5-items, respectively. The ideal cut-off for the SARC-F was a score ≥3. Applying this new cut-off in our study population, sensitivity and specificity of the 7-item MSRA were 0.757 and 0.651, and 0.688 and 0.679 for the 5-item MSRA, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of SARC-F were 0.524 and 0.765, respectively. The combined use of the 7-item SARC-F and MSRA improved the accuracy in sarcopenia diagnosis, with a specificity and sensitivity of 1.00 and 0.636.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
7-item SARC-F and MSRA may be co-administered in hospital wards as an easy, feasible, first-line tool to identify sarcopenic subjects.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33669277
pii: nu13020635
doi: 10.3390/nu13020635
pmc: PMC7920060
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2016 Mar;7(1):28-36
pubmed: 27066316
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2006 Oct;61(10):1059-64
pubmed: 17077199
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019 Jan;20(1):53-57
pubmed: 29909052
Am J Epidemiol. 1998 Apr 15;147(8):755-63
pubmed: 9554417
JAMA. 1999 Feb 10;281(6):558-60
pubmed: 10022113
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2021 Feb;33(2):339-344
pubmed: 32346826
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013 Aug;14(8):531-2
pubmed: 23810110
Curr Pharm Des. 2014;20(19):3245-55
pubmed: 24050162
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1999 Oct;87(4):1513-20
pubmed: 10517786
PLoS One. 2020 Apr 20;15(4):e0231847
pubmed: 32310992
J Nutr Health Aging. 2017;21(6):743-749
pubmed: 28537342
BMC Geriatr. 2019 Nov 20;19(1):318
pubmed: 31747923
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014 Apr;15(4):303.e7-12
pubmed: 24508329
J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-98
pubmed: 1202204
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015 Mar 18;16:60
pubmed: 25887598
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2019 Oct;31(10):1481-1489
pubmed: 30539542
Age Ageing. 2019 Jan 1;48(1):16-31
pubmed: 30312372
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2016 Dec;70(12):1439-1442
pubmed: 27577178
J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83
pubmed: 3558716
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2017 Oct 12;72(11):1575-1581
pubmed: 28329345
Clin Nutr. 2015 Aug;34(4):745-51
pubmed: 25263170
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1983 Dec;31(12):721-7
pubmed: 6418786
Braz J Med Biol Res. 2019;52(9):e8204
pubmed: 31482974
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017 Feb 1;18(2):176-181
pubmed: 28043805
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2014 Sep;68(9):1001-7
pubmed: 24961545
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2013 Apr;67(4):395-400
pubmed: 23388666