Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Apr;30(4):307-313.
doi: 10.1007/s40520-017-0866-9. Epub 2017 Dec 1.

Quality of life in sarcopenia measured with the SarQoL®: impact of the use of different diagnosis definitions

Charlotte Beaudart  1 , Médéa Locquet  2 , Jean-Yves Reginster  2 , Laura Delandsheere  2 , Jean Petermans  3 , Olivier Bruyère  2
Affiliations

Quality of life in sarcopenia measured with the SarQoL®: impact of the use of different diagnosis definitions

Charlotte Beaudart et al. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2018 Apr.

Abstract

Background: The SarQoL® is a recently developed quality of life questionnaire specific to sarcopenia.

Aim: To compare the quality of life (QoL) of subjects identified as sarcopenic with that of non-sarcopenic subjects when using six different operational definitions of sarcopenia.

Methods: Participants of the SarcoPhAge study (Belgium) completed the SarQoL®. Among the six definitions used, two were based on low lean mass alone (Baumgartner, Delmonico), and four required both low muscle mass and decreased performance (Cruz-Jentoft, Studenski, Fielding, Morley). Physical assessments included measurements of muscle mass with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, muscle strength with a handheld dynamometer and gait speed over a 4-m distance.

Results: A total of 387 subjects completed the SarQoL®. Prevalence of sarcopenia varied widely across the different definitions. Using the SarQoL®, a lower QoL was found for sarcopenic subjects compared to non-sarcopenic subjects when using the definitions of Cruz-Jentoft (56.3 ± 13.4 vs 68.0 ± 15.2, p < 0.001), Studenski (51.1 ± 14.5 vs 68.2 ± 14.6, p < 0.001), Fielding (53.8 ± 12.0 vs 68.3 ± 15.1, p < 0.001), and Morley (53.3 ± 12.5 vs 67.1 ± 15.3, p < 0.001). No QoL difference between sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic subjects was found when using the definitions of Baumgartner or Delmonico, which were only based on the notion of decreased muscle mass.

Discussion and conclusions: The SarQoL® was able to discriminate sarcopenic from non-sarcopenic subjects with regard to their QoL, regardless of the definition used for diagnosis as long as the definition includes an assessment of both muscle mass and muscle function. Poorer QoL, therefore, seems more related to muscle function than to muscle mass.

Keywords: Prevalence; Quality of life; SarQoL; Sarcopenia; Specific HRQoL questionnaire.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of interest

Charlotte Beaudart, Olivier Bruyère and Jean-Yves Reginster are shareholders of SarQoL® sprl. The other authors have no relevant competing interests to declare.

Funding

C.B. and ML are supported by a fellowship from the FNRS (Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique de Belgique—FRSFNRS—http://www.frs-fnrs.be). C.B. also received the “Young Investigator Research Grant” from the International Osteoporosis Foundation and Servier for the development and validation of the French version of the SarQoL® questionnaire.

Research involving human participants

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Involvement of participants in the SarcoPhAge Study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Prevalence of sarcopenia (%) according to diagnostic definitions
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Beaudart C, Zaaria M, Pasleau F, et al. Health outcomes of sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0169548. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169548. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lang T, Streeper T, Cawthon P, et al. Sarcopenia: etiology, clinical consequences, intervention, and assessment. Osteoporos Int. 2010;21:543–559. doi: 10.1007/s00198-009-1059-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, 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: 10.1093/ageing/afq034. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cesari M, Landi F, Calvani R, et al. Rationale for a preliminary operational definition of physical frailty and sarcopenia in the SPRINTT trial. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2017;29:81–88. doi: 10.1007/s40520-016-0716-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Beaudart C, Reginster J-Y, Petermans J, et al. Qualité de vie du patient sarcopénique : apport de lâ€TMétude liégeoise SarcoPhAge. Gériatrie Psychol Neuropsychiatr Vieil. 2015;13:391–395. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources