Ming Yang, Center of Gerontology and Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guoxue Lane, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, Phone: +86 28 8542 2326, Fax: +86 28 8542 2321, Email:
J Nutr Health Aging. 2020;24(10):1100-1106. doi: 10.1007/s12603-020-1445-x.
No pictorial questionnaire is available for screening sarcopenia. We aimed to develop a self-reported cartoon questionnaire based on the SARC-F and the Finger-Ring test and to compare its diagnostic accuracy with the SARC-F and the SARC-F combined with calf circumference (SARC-CalF).
A diagnostic accuracy study.
Urban communities in Chengdu, China.
Older adults aged ≥ 60 years.
We established a multidiscipline team to design this pictorial questionnaire, entitled Self-Reported Cartoon SARC-CalF (cSARC-CalF). We used the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) criteria as the "gold standard" of sarcopenia. We performed sensitivity/ specificity analyses of the three tools (cSARC-CalF, SARC-CalF, and SARC-F) and applied the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and the area under the ROC curves (AUC) to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the three tools.
We included 1,009 participants. Using the Youden Index method, the cutoff of the cSARC-CalF for identifying sarcopenia was set as ≥11 points. Both the cSARC-CalF and the SARC-CalF showed better sensitivity but similar specificity than the SARC-F for identifying sarcopenia (sensitivity: 33.3%, 41.4%, and 23.0%; specificity: 90.1%, 85.9%, and 88.1%). The AUCs of the cSARC-CalF, SARC-CalF, and SARC-F were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.71 - 0.77), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76 - 0.81), and 0.67 (95% CI, 0.64 - 0.70), respectively. The difference in AUCs between cSARC-CalF and SARC-F and the difference in AUCs between SARC-CalF and SARC-F was statistically significant (p=0.012 and p<0.001, respectively). However, the difference in AUCs between cSARC-CalF and SARC-CalF was not significant (p=0.109).
The cSARC-CalF showed a better overall diagnostic accuracy than the SARC-F and a similar overall diagnostic accuracy as the SARC-CalF in Chinese community-dwelling older adults. It may serve as a new tool for screening sarcopenia; however, it needs to be validated in other populations.
目前尚无用于筛查肌少症的图像问卷。我们旨在开发一种基于 SARC-F 和指环测试的自我报告卡通问卷，并比较其与 SARC-F 和 SARC-F 联合小腿围（SARC-CalF）的诊断准确性。
诊断准确性研究。
中国成都的城市社区。
年龄≥60 岁的老年人。
我们成立了一个多学科团队来设计这个图像问卷，命名为自我报告卡通 SARC-CalF（cSARC-CalF）。我们使用亚洲肌少症工作组（AWGS）标准作为肌少症的“金标准”。我们对三种工具（cSARC-CalF、SARC-CalF 和 SARC-F）进行了敏感性/特异性分析，并应用接收者操作特征（ROC）曲线和 ROC 曲线下面积（AUC）比较三种工具的诊断准确性。
我们纳入了 1009 名参与者。使用约登指数法，将 cSARC-CalF 识别肌少症的截断值设定为≥11 分。cSARC-CalF 和 SARC-CalF 均显示出比 SARC-F 更高的敏感性，但特异性相似，用于识别肌少症（敏感性：33.3%、41.4%和 23.0%；特异性：90.1%、85.9%和 88.1%）。cSARC-CalF、SARC-CalF 和 SARC-F 的 AUC 分别为 0.74（95%CI，0.71-0.77）、0.79（95%CI，0.76-0.81）和 0.67（95%CI，0.64-0.70）。cSARC-CalF 与 SARC-F 的 AUC 差异以及 SARC-CalF 与 SARC-F 的 AUC 差异均具有统计学意义（p=0.012 和 p<0.001）。然而，cSARC-CalF 与 SARC-CalF 的 AUC 差异无统计学意义（p=0.109）。
在中国社区居住的老年人中，cSARC-CalF 总体诊断准确性优于 SARC-F，与 SARC-CalF 相似。它可能成为筛查肌少症的新工具，但需要在其他人群中验证。
