Development of a Simple and Practical Screening Tool for Detection of Sarcopenia in Older People: The Bushehr Elderly Health Program

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

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.

Ethical considerations in sarcopenia research

The Article Abstract is not available.

Validated Tools for Screening Sarcopenia: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Choosing the optimal sarcopenia screening tool for a specific clinical scenario is challenging. We aimed to summarize all validated sarcopenia screening tools with diagnostic accuracy tested in one or more study populations.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Hospitals, nursing homes, communities, or health checkups.

METHODS

We systematically searched 3 databases in April 2022: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Two review authors independently performed the study selection and data extraction. The included tools' contents, characteristics, and number of citations were summarized and visualized.

RESULTS

We summarized 102 diagnostic accuracy studies involving 53 screening tools, classified into 7 groups: questionnaires (n = 13); serum biomarkers (n = 10); formulas, algorithms, and models (n = 9); physical ability tests (n = 9); integration tools (n = 7); anthropometric indices (n = 3); and ultrasound or bioimpedance analysis (n = 2). The most commonly used questionnaire was SARC-F (770 citations), followed by SARC-CalF (254 citations) and MSRA-7 (61 citations). Handgrip strength and Ishii score were the most widely used physical performance tests (331 citations) and formulas (294 citations), respectively. Sarcopenia index (based on serum cystatin C and creatinine) and calf circumference were the most commonly used serum biomarkers (123 citations) and anthropometric indexes (127 citations), respectively. Ultrasound was the most commonly used imaging tool for screening sarcopenia (57 citations). The included tools varied significantly in content. Various tools assessed some or all components of sarcopenia with different methods, and others assessed different domains, such as age, body mass index, falls, diet, and even mental health. We also summarized the screening tools that were validated in different clinical settings (hospitals, communities, nursing homes, and health checkups).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

More than 50 validated tools are currently available for screening sarcopenia in different clinical settings. The results of this review may help clinicians and researchers in selecting optimal tools for sarcopenia in different clinical scenarios and in developing future tools.

Development and validation of a Sarcopenia Geriatric Scale (SARCO-GS): a new short scale for the screening of sarcopenia

Introduction

Sarcopenia is a highly prevalent disease associated with adverse outcomes such as falls, disability, and death. The current international consensuses agree that muscle strength, muscle mass, and gait speed must be included in the definition. However, these proposed criteria require objective measurements that are not available for most populations. Since the timely identification of sarcopenia is a priority, several subjective screening scales have been developed; however, they have some limitations due to their low sensitivity. The objective of this work was to develop and validate SARCO-GS, a new short scale to screen sarcopenia that is affordable, easy, and accessible for all clinical care settings.

Methods and materials

The development of the SARCO-GS included four stages: (1) Review and analysis of documentary sources, (2) Contextualization of the theoretical model of sarcopenia, (3) Scale conformation, and (4) Reliability and validity analyses. SARCO-GS was validated in the FraDySMex study, which is a longitudinal cohort of community-dwelling adults.

Results

In the studied population (n=852), the average age was 68.9 years (SD 10.21) and 80.1% of the participants were women. SARCO-GS is a seven-item scale with an innovative structure that included five subjective questions (gait speed, muscular strength, muscle mass) and two measurements of muscular strength and muscle mass (Chair stand test and calf circumference). The results regarding criterion validity showed that the cut-off point ≥ 3 had good sensitivity (77.68%) versus the EWGSOP2 consensus, with an adequate Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUC) (0.73), in addition to showing higher values of sensitivity and AUC than SARC-F and SARC-CalF using as reference the same consensus. Furthermore, SARCO-GS presented good predictive validity for functional dependence (HR=2.22, p=0.046) and acceptable correlation with other related measurements (construct validity). Regarding reliability, the scale showed acceptable internal reliability (correlation between items and total score: 0.50 to 0.70). After the validation analysis, the scale was adapted to English.

Conclusions

The SARCO-GS is a novel scale to screen sarcopenia with high sensitivity, good construct, predictive validity, and internal reliability that may be useful for health professionals in different clinical settings and for clinical research.

A more accurate method to estimate muscle mass: A new estimation equation

BACKGROUND

Measurement of muscle mass is important in the diagnosis of sarcopenia. Current measurement equipment are neither cost-effective nor standardized and cannot be used in a variety of medical settings. Some simple measurement tools have been proposed that are subjective and unvalidated. We aimed to develop and validate a new estimation equation in a more objective and standardized way, based on current proven variables that accurately reflect muscle mass.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis with The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database for equation development and validation. Overall, 9875 participants were included for development (6913 participants) and validation (2962 participants), for whom the database included demographic data, physical measurements, and main biochemical indicators. Appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) was estimated by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and low muscle mass was defined by reference to five international diagnostic criteria. Linear regression was used to estimate the logarithm of the actual ASM from demographic data, physical measurements, and biochemical indicators.

RESULTS

This study of 9875 participants comprised 4492 females (49.0%), with a weighted mean (SE) age of 41.83 (0.36) years and range of 12 to 85 years. The estimated ASM equations performed well in the validation data set. The variability in estimated ASM was low compared with the actual ASM (R2 : Equation 1 = 0.91, Equation 4 = 0.89), with low bias (median difference: Equation 1 = -0.64, Equation 4 = 0.07; root mean square error: Equation 1 = 1.70 [1.69-1.70], Equation 4 = 1.85 [1.84-1.86]), high precision (interquartile range of the differences: Equation 1 = 1.87, Equation 4 = 2.17), and high efficacy in diagnosing low muscle mass (area under the curve: Equation 1 = 0.91 to 0.95, Equation 4 = 0.90 to 0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

The estimated ASM equations are accurate and simple and can be routinely applied clinically to estimate ASM and thus assess sarcopenia.

National and subnational survey on diabetes burden and quality of care index in Iran: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 1990-2019

Purpose

Diabetes care is one of the major healthcare problems . This study aimed to introduce a recently-developed Quality of Care Index (QCI) for type 2 diabetes and utilized it to compare different genders, age groups, and Iranian provinces.

Methods

From the Global Burden of Disease 1990-2019 database, we obtained primary epidemiologic measures and combined them to build four secondary indices, all indicating the quality of care provided to patients. We utilized the principal component analysis (PCA) method to calculate the substantial component named QCI (with a scale of 0-100). Gender inequality was shown by the gender disparity ratio (GDR), defining female to male QCI.

Results

National QCI ranged from 43.0 in 1990 to 38.6 in 2019. By excluding the more frequent outlier province; Tehran as the Capital of Iran, the QCI score reached 50.27 in 2019. The GDR decreased from 1.04 to 0.95. QCI indicated rather more favorable conditions in Iranian provinces with a higher socio-demographic index (SDI). Conversely, provinces with a lower SDI had worse QCI. In 2019, Tehran, the capital of Iran, with the highest (58.5), and South Khorasan with the lowest QCIs (0.4) were the two Iranian provinces' extremes. Moreover, the elderly QCI improved in 2019.

Conclusion

During 1990-2019, there are remarkable disparities between Iran's provinces, genders and age groups. The equitable and widespread provision of facilities should be considered along with the decentralization of healthcare resources.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-022-01108-x.

Role of sarcopenia risk in predicting COVID-19 severity and length of hospital stay in older adults: a prospective cohort study

Sarcopenia is more common in the elderly and causes adverse outcomes with increased morbidity and mortality. This prospective cohort study assessed the association of sarcopenia risk with the severity of COVID-19 at the time of admission and during hospitalisation and the length of hospital stay. Two hundred patients (aged ≥ 60 years) who were hospitalised for COVID-19 were enrolled using consecutive sampling between 29 December 2020 and 20 May 2021. The sarcopenia score of the patients was assessed using the Strength, Assistance in walking, Rising from a chair, Climbing stairs, and Falls questionnaire. The severity of COVID-19 was determined using the modified National Early Warning Score (m-NEWS) system for 2019 n-CoV-infected patients at admission (T1), day three (T2) and at discharge (T3). Data were analysed using SPSS, version 22 and STATA, version 14. Of the 165 patients included, thirty four (20·6 %) were at risk of sarcopenia. The length of hospital stay was slightly longer in patients with sarcopenia risk, but the difference was not significant (P = 0·600). The adjusted OR of respiratory rate (RR) > 20 /min at T1 for the sarcopenia risk group was 6·7-times higher than that for the non-sarcopenic group (P = 0·002). According to generalised estimating equations, after adjusting for confounding factors, the m-NEWS score was 5·6 units higher in patients at risk of sarcopenia (P < 0·001). Sarcopenia risk could exacerbate COVID-19 severity and increase RR at admission, as well as the need for oxygen therapy at discharge.

SARC-F and other screening tests for sarcopenia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sarcopenia screening tools can enable clinicians to select individuals for more demanding evaluations, and hence, may facilitate its timely diagnosis and management. The most common recommended screening test is SARC-F, whereas many others are proposed. We aimed to summarize the recent studies and evidence performed on SARC-F and other sarcopenia screening tools.

RECENT FINDINGS

Meta-analysis studies reported that despite having moderate-high specificity, SARC-F has low-moderate sensitivity to detect sarcopenia, which would cause a significant number of individuals having sarcopenia to be unrecognized. Several recent studies aimed to increase sensitivity and utility of SARC-F as a screening tool by i.e., application of lower cut-offs, adding extra-items, and combining with other screening tests. Some of these approaches increased its screening efficacy significantly. In line with its previous studies, SARC-F showed success to predict adverse outcomes in the latest studies as well. Recently, it has also been suggested as a reasonable screening test for frailty. In addition to the long-standing screening tests i.e., anthropometric measures, Ishii Test and Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment (MSRA) Questionnaire; new tests, i.e., Taiwan Risk Score for Sarcopenia, Sarcopenia Scoring Assessment Model (SarSA-Mod) and re-purposed tests, i.e., SARQoL questionnaire and fracture risk assessment tool have been investigated as potential screening tests for sarcopenia. Some of these tests performed as well as or superior to standard SARC-F.

SUMMARY

Screening of sarcopenia is critical for public health given its significant prevalence and adverse outcomes. SARC-F is the most recommended tool for screening but has low-moderate sensitivity. Studies performed recently indicate that its sensitivity can be increased by some attempts and it may be used as a reasonable test to screen frailty as well. Some other tests have also been developed/re-purposed for an efficient screening, needing to be tested for their performance and usability with future studies in different populations and settings.