ArticleAnnals of geriatric medicine and research2026
Diagnostic Performance of Arm Circumference Compared to Other Indicators for Detecting Sarcopenia in Older Adults.
Article in Annals of geriatric medicine and research, 2026. 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
backgroundTo evaluate the accuracy of arm circumference (AC) compared with other anthropometric and functional indicators as a predictor of sarcopenia risk in community-dwelling older adults.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional, analytical, population-based study derived from a household survey involving individuals aged 60 years or older. Measurements of AC, calf circumference (CC), and variables related to muscle strength, muscle mass, and functional performance were collected, including the Timed Up and Go test, sit-to-stand test, and gait speed.
resultsThe sample comprised 708 older adults, predominantly female (64.7%), aged between 60 and 94 years. The prevalence of sarcopenia was 14.7%, with 4.9% classified as severe. AC showed a negative association with sarcopenia (β=-0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.92, p<0.01) and reduced the odds of sarcopenia by 17% for each additional centimeter (odds ratio=0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.92). The comparison of the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) indicated similar performance between AC and CC (z=0.24, p=0.81). The diagnostic accuracy of AC was slightly higher than that of CC in male (27.1% vs. 26.6%) and female (43.0% vs. 37.6%).
conclusionBoth AC and CC demonstrated high discriminative capacity for sarcopenia, with cutoff points that balanced sensitivity and specificity. AC stands out as a viable, simple, and effective alternative for sarcopenia screening in community-dwelling older adults.
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.