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;22(9):1034-1038.
doi: 10.1007/s12603-018-1072-y.

Comparing SARC-F with SARC-CalF to Screen Sarcopenia in Community Living Older Adults

G Bahat  1 , M M Oren, O Yilmaz, C Kılıç, K Aydin, M A Karan
Affiliations

Comparing SARC-F with SARC-CalF to Screen Sarcopenia in Community Living Older Adults

G Bahat et al. J Nutr Health Aging. 2018.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the diagnostic value of the SARC-F combined with calf circumference (SARC-CalF) with the standard SARC-F to screen sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults.

Design: Cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study.

Setting: Geriatric outpatient clinic of a university hospital.

Participants: Older adults >= 65 years.

Measurements: Muscle mass (bioimpedance analysis device), muscle strength (hand grip strength-Jamar hydraulic hand dynamometer), and physical performance (usual gait speed). Four currently used diagnostic criteria [European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP), Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH), International Working Group on Sarcopenia (IWGS), and Society on Sarcopenia Cachexia and Wasting Disorders (SCWD) criteria] were applied. SARC-CalF was performed by using two different calf circumference threshold: standard cut-off 31 cm (SARC-CalF-31) and national cut-off 33 cm (SARC-CalF-33). The sensitivity/specificity analyses of the SARC-CalF and SARC-F tools were run. We used the receiver operating characteristics curves and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUC) to compare the diagnostic accuracy to identify sarcopenia.

Results: We included 207 subjects; 67 male and 140 female with a mean age of 74.6±6.7 years. The prevalence of sarcopenia ranged from 1.9% to 9.2%. The sensitivity of SARC-F was between 25% (EWGSOP) and 50% (IWGS); specificity was about 82%. For SARC-CalF-31 and SARC-CalF-33 sensitivity was in general similar -between 25-50%- which pointed out that SARC-CalF was not superior to SARC-F for sensitivity in this sample. Corresponding specificities for SARC-CalF-31 and SARC-CalF-33 were higher than SARC-F and were between 90-98%. Additionally, the AUC values, which indicates the diagnostic accuracy of a screening test, were in general higher for SARC-CalF-33 than the SARC-F and SARC-CalF-31.

Conclusions: We reported that addition of calf circumference item to SARC-F tool improved the specificity and diagnostic accuracy of SARC-F but it did not improve the sensitivity in a community-dwelling Turkish older adult population sample that had low prevalence of sarcopenia. The performance of SARC-CalF tool to screen sarcopenia is to be studied in different populations and living settings.

Keywords: SARC-CalF; SARC-F; Sarcopenia; diagnostic accuracy; screening; sensitivity; specificity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1a
Figure 1a
The ROC curves of SARC-F and SARC-CalF against EWGSOP definition
Figure 1b
Figure 1b
The ROC curves of SARC-F and SARC-CalF against FNIH definition
Figure 1c
Figure 1c
The ROC curves of SARC-F and SARC-CalF against IWGS definition
Figure 1d
Figure 1d
The ROC curves of SARC-F and SARC-CalF against SCWD definition
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Landi F, Schneider SM, et al. Prevalence of and interventions for sarcopenia in ageing adults: A systematic review. Report of the international sarcopenia initiative (EWGSOP and IWGS). Age Ageing. 2014;43:748–759. PubMed PMID: 25241753, PMCID 4204661. - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.04.021 PubMed PMID: 24947762. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Parra-Rodríguez L, Szlejf C, García-González AI, et al. 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. 10.1016/j.jamda.2016.09.008 PubMed PMID: 27815111. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Beaudart C, Locquet M, Bornheim S, et al. French translation and validation of the sarcopenia screening tool SARC-F. Eur Geriatr Med. 2018;9.1:29–37. 10.1007/s41999-017-0007-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yang M, Hu X, Xie L, et al. Screening Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: SARC-F vs SARC-F Combined With Calf Circumference (SARC-CalF) J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19:277. 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.08.011 PubMed PMID: 29477774. - DOI - PubMed

Uncited references

    1. Malmstrom TK, Morley JE. SARC-F: A simple questionnaire to rapidly diagnose sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14:531–532. 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.05.018 PubMed PMID: 23810110. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, et al. Studies of illness in the aged. The Index of Adl: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA. 1963;185:914–919. 10.1001/jama.1963.03060120024016 PubMed PMID: 14044222. - DOI - PubMed
    1. MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-management. Gerontologist. 1969;9:179–186. 10.1093/geront/9.3_Part_1.179 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rabin R d, Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33:337–343. 10.3109/07853890109002087 PubMed PMID: 11491192. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Guigoz Y, Vellas B, Garry PJ. Assessing the nutritional status of the elderly: The Mini Nutritional Assessment as part of the geriatric evaluation. Nutr Rev. 1996;54:59–65. 10.1111/j.1753-4887.1996.tb03793.x - DOI - PubMed