IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0231847.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of four sarcopenia screening questionnaires in community-dwelling older adults from Poland using six sets of international diagnostic criteria of sarcopenia

Author

Listed:
  • Roma Krzymińska-Siemaszko
  • Sławomir Tobis
  • Marta Lewandowicz
  • Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis

Abstract

Introduction: There are four screening sarcopenia questionnaires (SARC-F, SARC-CalF, MSRA-5, MSRA-7). To unambiguously determine which of them is the most effective tool in community-dwelling older adults, we performed a diagnostic accuracy study. The aim of the analysis was to assess the diagnostic values of SARC-F, SARC-CalF, MSRA-5, MSRA-7 and compare their psychometric properties against six criterion standards (EWGSOP1, EWGSOP2, FNIH, AWGS, IWGS, SCWD criteria). Materials and methods: We included 100 community-dwelling volunteers aged ≥ 65yrs. The sensitivity/specificity analyses were performed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the ROC curves (AUC) were calculated to compare the overall diagnostic accuracy of the four questionnaires. Ideal screening tools should have reasonably high sensitivity and specificity, and an AUC value above 0.7. Results: With respect to the six criterion standards used, the sensitivity of SARC-F, SARC-CalF, MSRA-5, and MSRA-7 ranged 35.0–90.0%, 20.0–75.0%, 64.7–90.0%, 76.5–91.7%, respectively, whereas the specificity ranged 86.9–91.1%, 80.0–90.0%, 45.8–48.8%, 28.9–31.0% respectively. The AUCs of SARC-F, SARC-CalF, MSRA-5, and MSRA-7 ranged from 0.655–0.882, 0.711–0.874, 0.618–0.782 and 0.588–0.711 respectively. Only SARC-CalF had AUC >0.7 and

Suggested Citation

  • Roma Krzymińska-Siemaszko & Sławomir Tobis & Marta Lewandowicz & Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis, 2020. "Comparison of four sarcopenia screening questionnaires in community-dwelling older adults from Poland using six sets of international diagnostic criteria of sarcopenia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0231847
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231847
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231847
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231847&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0231847?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0231847. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.