ArticleBMC public health2025
Health economics evaluation of screening for sarcopenia among community-dwelling older persons.
Article in BMC public health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveSarcopenia increased the risk of various adverse outcomes, including cardiovascular diseases, falls, and mortality. Implementing interventions could mitigate the harm caused by sarcopenia. With the dearth of health economics evaluation on sarcopenia screening, we aimed to evaluate the costs and benefits of sarcopenia screening strategies among community-dwelling older persons.
methodsWe constructed a decision-analytic Markov model for a cohort of individuals aged 60 years and above with a total of 25 1-year cycles. A total of 20 screening strategies, with annual or biennial screening interval and 10 screening tools: SARC-F, MSRA-5, MSRA-7, calf circumference, Finger-ring test, Ishii test, SARC-CALF, AWGS 2019, SARC-F|MSRA-5 (Parallel test), and SARC-F|MSRA-7 (Parallel test), were assessed in our study. Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted by calculating the cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for each strategy. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was obtained by comparing with no screening. Highly cost-effective strategies were considered if ICER was less than the per-capita GDP for China ($12,551.49), and the strategy with the lowest ICER was the most cost-effective. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA & PSA) were used to assess the robustness of the main outcomes.
resultsCompared with no screening, all screening strategies were highly cost-effective. The most cost-effective screening strategy was biennial SARC-F|MSRA-7 screening ($1461.52/QALY), followed by annual SARC-F|MSRA-7 screening ($2147.82/QALY), biennial AWGS 2019 screening ($2340.21/QALY), and annual AWGS 2019 screening ($2419.16/QALY). DSA results indicated that the model was relatively stable. PSA results indicated that the probability of annual AWGS 2019 screening being cost-effective increased to 100%, when the willing-to-pay threshold increased to $9800.
conclusionCombining the PSA results, we recommended conducting annual sarcopenia screening with AWGS 2019 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.