ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Comparative assessment of sarcopenia screening tools for patients with bone tumors: insights for enhanced clinical application.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sarcopenia screening in bone tumor patients is challenging due to limited awareness, complex procedures, and high costs-especially since most research targets older adults, overlooking younger patients in this group. This study aims to compare the screening efficacy of five different tools for sarcopenia, and to identify the most appropriate screening tool for patients with bone tumors. Methods: The five sarcopenia screening tools assessed were SARC-F, SARC-Calf, SARC-F + EBM, and the Chinese versions of the Mini-Sarcopenia Risk Assessment scales (MSRA-5 and MSRA-7). The 2019 Asia Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) criteria served as the reference standard for sarcopenia screening. Results: Among 300 bone tumor patients, 26% were found to have sarcopenia based on AWGS 2019 criteria. The screening tools varied in performance, with SARC-Calf showing the highest sensitivity and MSRA-7 the lowest specificity. Positive and negative predictive values were moderate across tools, with combined screening methods generally improving sensitivity. The highest overall accuracy (AUC) was observed when using a combination of SARC-F, SARC-Calf, and EBM, which provided both high sensitivity and acceptable specificity. Conclusion: The SARC-Calf and SARC-F + EBM tools demonstrated high accuracy in screening sarcopenia among bone tumor patients. The combined use of SARC-F, SARC-Calf, and SARC-F + EBM yielded superior screening performance, making them suitable for preliminary sarcopenia screening in this patient population.
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.