2021
DOI: 10.1007/s12603-021-1617-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ability of SARC-F to Find Probable Sarcopenia Cases in Older Adults

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
24
2
3

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
4
24
2
3
Order By: Relevance
“…On the other hand, SARC-F has been reported having low sensitivity (4-35%) but high specificity (80-98%) [3,4]. We have recently analyzed the sensitivity of SARC-F by applying different thresholds [5]. In this study, we used the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve to test the predictive accuracy to determine a suitable cut-off point in this analysis.…”
Section: To the Editormentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…On the other hand, SARC-F has been reported having low sensitivity (4-35%) but high specificity (80-98%) [3,4]. We have recently analyzed the sensitivity of SARC-F by applying different thresholds [5]. In this study, we used the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve to test the predictive accuracy to determine a suitable cut-off point in this analysis.…”
Section: To the Editormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For a given test, a low sensitivity score indicates a lesser capacity of a screening tool to detect individuals having the condition of interest. Our recent report put forward the SARC-F score ≥ 1 is better for screening, while the commonly used cut point ≥ 4 is better for excluding probable sarcopenia [5]. It would be welcome if the authors could have an additional analysis by the ≥ 1 and 2 cut points.…”
Section: To the Editormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Observably, the cut-off score that the performer uses to define a positive result will alter the prevalence of positive screening outcomes and thereby, the sensitivity and specificity of a given test. We have recently analyzed the sensitivity of SARC-F by applying different thresholds within this context [20]. A cut-off point >=1 increased sensitivity to 84.2% with accompanying acceptable specificity of 40.5%.…”
Section: Sarc-f: Sensitivity and Specificity To Diagnose Sarcopeniamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We showed that a SARC-F cut-off point >=2 demonstrated the best synthesis of sensitivity (64.9%) and specificity (67.9%) for detecting probable sarcopenia. Hence, a SARC-F score of >= 1 has been suggested better for screening and a cutoff point of >= 4 better for excluding probable sarcopenia [20]. Very recently, Dodds et al also suggested that a SARC-F cut-off point of one or above improved sensitivity (65%) with a 72% specificity [21].…”
Section: Sarc-f: Sensitivity and Specificity To Diagnose Sarcopeniamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since SARC-F has low sensitivity, but high specificity [ 11 , 14 ], the risk of sarcopenia assessed by SARC-F may be underestimated [ 11 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. Another cut-off score was recently reported for predicting the risk of sarcopenia (SARC-F = 1) [ 17 ] and the usefulness of SARC-F for detecting the risk of frailty or falls has been demonstrated [ 18 , 19 ]. A previous study revealed a relationship between SARC-F scores and muscle mass [ 20 , 21 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%