ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Evaluation of sarcopenia diagnosis strategies in Chinese community-dwelling older adults based on the 2019 Asian Working Group guidelines: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a screening tool for sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults: a diagnostic cross-sectional study.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Availability and convenience of sarcopenia screening and diagnostic tools in Chinese primary care.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Heterogeneous frailty trajectories and their differential impact on social integration in older adults with COPD: a prospective longitudinal study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Combined and progressive effect of frailty and sarcopenia on the risk of cardiovascular disease in middle-aged and older adults.Journal of global health · 2025Article
- The association between living habits, physical activity level and sarcopenia in chinese older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Prevalence and Risk Factors of Sarcopenia in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study With Nutritional Assessment.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMost diagnostic studies on sarcopenia in Asia follow the 2019 Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) guidelines, which recommend distinct diagnostic strategies for community and hospital settings due to challenges in measuring muscle mass in community environments. This study evaluates the screening-to-diagnosis process in community-based preventive services.
methodsThis cross-sectional study utilized a questionnaire survey to evaluate SARC-F and SARC-CalF. Measurements included calf circumference (CC), handgrip strength, gait speed and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). Participants were diagnosed according to the AWGS 2019 criteria. Four scenarios simulating the screening-to-diagnosis process in a community setting were evaluated. Sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) were calculated to assess diagnostic performance.
resultsA total of 2453 community-dwelling older adults aged ≥60 years were included. The prevalence of sarcopenia was 14.1% (345/2453), with rates of 15.4%(160/1038) in males and 13.1% (185/1415) in females. In the simulated diagnostic scenarios, the number of confirmed cases was 218 (combination,Scenario1), 211 (CC,Scenario2), 60 (SARC-CalF,Scenario3) and 21 (SARC-F,Scenario4), respectively. In the case-finding step, the sensitivity for Scenarios1 to 4 was 0.86,0.84,0.23 and 0.07, respectively; specificity was 0.57,0.58,0.93 and 0.99, respectively; and the AUCs were 0.717,0.710,0.581 and 0.530, respectively. In the assessment step, the sensitivity for Scenarios 1 to 4 was 0.73,0.73,0.74 and 0.88, respectively; specificity was 0.81,0.82,0.68 and 0.24, respectively; and the AUCs were 0.774,0.774,0.712 and 0.557,respectively. The integrated sensitivity of the case-finding and assessment steps for Scenarios 1 to 4 was 0.63,0.61,0.17 and 0.06, respectively; integrated specificity was 0.92,0.92,0.98 and 0.99, respectively; and integrated AUCs were 0.776,0.768,0.575 and 0.523, respectively. The diagnostic performance of the entire procedure was better in females than in males.
conclusionsIn the case-finding step, the CC tool demonstrated superior performance compared to the combination tool, SARC-CalF, and SARC-F. In the assessment step, the muscle strength test was consistently performed with stability. The integrated performances of the case-finding and assessment steps exhibited moderate accuracy in Scenarios 1 and 2, but low accuracy in Scenarios 3 and 4. There is a pressing need to develop more accurate and user-friendly tools to improve sarcopenia detection among community-dwelling older adults in China.
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.