4.7 Article

Basis for Sarcopenia Screening With the SARC-CalF in Nursing Homes

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.07.011

Keywords

Disabilities; functional decline; health; long-term care

Funding

  1. Norwegian Financial Mechanism Program [4300-472/2014]
  2. StarBios 2 Structural Transformation to Attain Responsible BioSciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Sarcopenia is a major health problem of the older population. The European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) developed diagnostic criteria for diagnosis of sarcopenia that require assessing muscle mass and strength or physical performance. Recently, however, a rapid screening method SARC-CalF was developed. Objective: The aim of the present study was to validate the SARC-CalF test using EWGSOP sarcopenia diagnostic criteria in a sample of nursing home residents. Methods: Cross-sectional study. A sample of 80 nursing home residents [30% of men; mean age 84.3 (7.9) years]. Sarcopenia was determined as proposed by the EWGSOP diagnostic criteria, whereby muscle mass was measured by bioelectrical impedance, muscle strength by handgrip strength, and physical performance by usual gait speed and a Short Physical Performance Battery score. Sarcopenia was also assessed by the SARC-CalF screening test. Results: A total of 38.7% of sarcopenia was evaluated using EWGSOP diagnostic criteria and 36.2% using the SARC-CalF test. The SARC-CalF demonstrated a sensitivity level of 77.4% and specificity of 89.8%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of SARC-CalF test was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.74, 0.94). Conclusions: SARC-CalF could be a useful screening test for sarcopenia in nursing home residents. The incorporation of the test as a basis for sarcopenia screening will provide additional value to current nursing home preventive measures. (C) 2017 AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available