Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38375338›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in public health2024

The accuracy of screening tools for sarcopenia in older Chinese adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Siyu Qian, Siqing Zhang, Mengchen Lu, Shuhang Chen, Liyao Liu, Siqi Liu, Fanglin Jiang, Jisheng Zhang

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Siyu Qian *School of Physical Education, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.
Siqing Zhang *School of Physical Education, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Mengchen LuSchool of Physical Education, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.
Shuhang ChenSchool of Physical Education, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.
Liyao LiuSchool of Physical Education, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.
Siqi LiuSchool of Physical Education, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.
Fanglin JiangSchool of Physical Education, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.
Jisheng ZhangSchool of Physical Education, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This review aimed to analyze and compare the accuracy of eight screening tools for sarcopenia in older Chinese adults according to different diagnostic criteria. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases were searched between the publication of the first expert consensus on sarcopenia in 2010 and April 2023 using relevant MeSH terms. We evaluated the risk bias of the included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. The pooled result of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and plot the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) were calculated by using a bivariate random-effects model. The accuracies of sensitivity and specificity of the screening tools were compared using the Z-test. Results: A total of 30 studies (23,193 participants) were included, except for calf circumference (CC), Ishii, and Finger-ring Test; Screening tools for sarcopenia in older Chinese adults have consistently shown low to moderate sensitivity and moderate to high specificity. Regional and sex differences affect the accuracy of the screening tools. In terms of sensitivity and specificity, the CC, Ishii, and Finger-ring Test were superior to the other screening tools. Conclusion: The Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia (AWGS) 2019 criteria are more appropriate for the diagnosis of sarcopenia in older Chinese adults. According to the AWGS 2019, CC and Ishii are recommended for sarcopenia screening in older Chinese adults.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningSarcopeniaSensitivity and SpecificityAgedChinaEast Asian PeopleFemaleHumansMaleaccuracyolder Chinese adultssarcopeniascreening toolsystematic review and meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID38375338
PMCPMC10876058

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.