ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparative evaluation of screening tools for sarcopenia in patients with axial spondyloarthritis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unravelling the Complexity of Sarcopenia Through a Systems Biology Approach.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- A comparative analysis of sarcopenia screening methods in Thai people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in an outpatient setting.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Comparative assessment of sarcopenia screening tools for patients with bone tumors: insights for enhanced clinical application.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sarcopenia is linked to chronic inflammation and muscle wasting. This research aims to compare the screening accuracy of tools for sarcopenia in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). A cross-sectional study involving 104 axSpA patients was conducted at Phramongkutklao Hospital between January 2020 and February 2021. Sarcopenia was diagnosed according to the AWGS 2019 criteria. Appendicular skeletal muscle mass was measured using DXA. SARC-F, SARC-CalF, and SARC-F+EBM, muscle strength, and physical performance were assessed. The screening tests were evaluated using ROC curves. The optimal cutoffs were identified with the Youden index. Most patients were male (74%), with a mean (SD) age and disease duration of 42.6 (12.22) and 8.3 (8.5), respectively. The prevalence of sarcopenia was 22.1%. The AUCs (95% CI) for calf circumference, SARC-F, SARC-CalF, SARC-F+EBM, handgrip strength, chair stand time, gait speed, and time and go test were 0.830 (0.734, 0.925), 0.509 (0.373-0.645), 0.782 (0.670-0.894), 0.856 (0.758-0.954), 0.710 (0.594-0.825), 0.640 (0.508-0.772), 0.689 (0.539-0.839), and 0.711 (0.576-0.846), respectively. The optimal cutoffs for SARC-F, SARC-CalF, and SARC-F+EBM were 1, 10, and 10, with sensitivity/specificity of 81.0%/29.7%, 90.5%/68.9%, and 77.3%/87.2%, respectively. Calf circumference, SARC-CalF, and SARC-F+EBM had the best performance to screen for sarcopenia in axSpA patients. Lowering the thresholds would potentially enhance the performances of SARC-CalF and SARC-F+EBM.
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.