ArticleThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2026
Comparison of Seven Sarcopenia Screening Tools in Older Type 2 Diabetes Patients Using Four Diagnostic Criteria.
Article in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessment of screening tools for diabetic sarcopenia in type 2 diabetes mellitus: evidence from a scoping review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of seven sarcopenia screening tools against four international guidelines.
methodsThis cross-sectional study recruited 330 Chinese older patients from a tertiary hospital. Sarcopenia was diagnosed based on muscle mass, strength, and physical performance using four guidelines: the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) 2019 consensus, The updated version of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP2), Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Sarcopenia Project (FNIH), and the International Working Group on Sarcopenia (IWGS). Seven screening tools included: SARC-F, MSRA-7, MSRA-5, Calf Circumference (CC), Finger-ring Test, SARC-CalF, and Ishii Score. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, including area under the curve (AUC).
resultsThis study enrolled 330 older adults with type 2 diabetes, including 172 women and 158 men, with a mean age of 68.35 ± 6.32 years. Sarcopenia prevalence ranged from 7.58% to 27.27%. The Ishii Score showed the highest accuracy for screening sarcopenia in older patients with T2DM. Under the 2019 consensus of the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia criteria, sensitivity ranged from 13.33% (SARC-F) to 80.00% (Ishii Score), and specificity ranged from 27.92% (MSRA-7) to 91.67% (SARC-F). AUCs ranged from 0.51 (MSRA-5) to 0.79 (Ishii Score). In subgroup analyses, the Ishii Score also demonstrated the highest AUC values in men (0.79) and in women (0.83). The performance of tools varied against other three golden standards, with sensitivity (8.00%-98.04%), specificity (27.21%-91.67%), and AUC (0.51-0.88).
conclusionsThe Ishii score demonstrated the highest overall diagnostic accuracy for sarcopenia screening. CC may be ideal for rapid screening, while SARC-F suits confirmatory testing. Further validation of these tools in diverse settings is needed.
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.