ArticleThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2021
Evaluation of Four Methods for the Assessment of Sarcopenia in Older Adults in Nursing Homes.
Article in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of the Ishii Test for screening sarcopenia in older adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) studies.BMC geriatrics · 2024Pooled it
- The accuracy of screening tools for sarcopenia in older Chinese adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Screening and diagnosis tools for sarcopenia: an overview of systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2026Review
- Research progress on the diagnosis and pathogenesis of chronic heart failure combined with sarcopenia.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Prevention of Sarcopenia.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025Review
- Diagnostic accuracy analysis of SARC-F, its modified versions and the Quality of Life in Sarcopenia questionnaire in screening for sarcopenia in nursing home residents.Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2024Article
- Comparative analysis of SARC-F-EBM, Ishii test, and six other screening tools for sarcopenia in Chinese community-dwelling older adults: a cross-sectional diagnostic study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of six screening methods for sarcopenia among rural community-dwelling older adults: a diagnostic accuracy study.European geriatric medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and applicability of using calf circumference (CC), strength, need for assistance with walking, rising from a sitting position, climbing stairs, and the incidence of falls (SARC-F), as well as SARC-F plus CC (SARC-CalF) and the Ishii test, for assessing sarcopenia in older adult nursing home occupants.
methodIn this cross-sectional study, the diagnostic criteria of the AWGS2019 were used as the standard, and the accuracy of the four screening methods determined by indicators, including sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV).
resultsOne hundred and ninety-nine older adults, 97 male and 102 female, were included. The prevalence of sarcopenia was 48.7%. Over all the participants, the sensitivity and specificity of CC were 74.22% and 51.96%, respectively, and 40.21% and 83.33%, respectively, for SARC-F. The use of SARC-CalF raised the SARC-F sensitivity (71.14%) while reducing the specificity (60.78%). The Ishii test had a sensitivity of 89.7% and a specificity of 74.51%. The PPV and NPV of CC, SARC-F, SARC-CalF, Ishii test were 0.6/0.68, 0.7/0.59, 0.55/0.63, and 0.77/0.88, respectively. The areas under the curve for CC, SARC-F, SARC-CalF, and the Ishii test were 0.67(95%CI, 0.59-0.74), 0.71(95%CI, 0.64-0.79), 0.71(95%CI, 0.64-0.79), and 0.86 (95% CI,0.81-0.92), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of CC, SARC-F, SARC-CalF, and the Ishii test for sarcopenia screening in males were 71.69%/56.41%, 29.31%/79.49%, 67.24%/64.10%, and 94.83%/56.41%, respectively, and in females were 79.49%/49.21%, 56.41%/85.71%, 76.92%/58.73%, and 82.05%/85.71%, respectively. The PPV and NPV of CC, SARC-F, SARC-CalF, and the Ishii test in males were 0.71/0.56, 0.68/0.43, 0.74/0.57, and 0.76/0.88, respectively, while in females the values were 0.49/0.79, 0.71/0.76, 0.54/0.8, and 0.78/0.89, respectively.The areas under the curve for CC, SARC-F, SARC-CalF, and the Ishii test in males were 0.7(95%CI, 0.59-0.8), 0.63(95%CI, 0.52-0.75), 0.68(95%CI, 0.57-0.8), and 0.86(95% CI, 0.78-0.94), respectively, and in females 0.69(95%CI, 0.58-0.8), 0.81(95%CI, 0.72-0.89), 0.76(95%CI, 0.67-0.86), and 0.85 (95%CI, 0.77-0.94), respectively.
conclusionThe overall screening ability of the Ishii test for sarcopenia was superior to that of the CC, SARC-F, and SARC-CalF in older adults in nursing homes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.