4.4 Article

Comparison of the prevalence of sarcopenia using skeletal muscle mass index and calf circumference applying the European consensus definition in elderly Mexican women

Journal

GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 161-170

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ggi.12652

Keywords

calf circumference; elderly women; sarcopenia; skeletal muscle mass index

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimTo compare the prevalence of sarcopenia using two indicators: skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) and calf circumference (CC) used in the algorithm proposed by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Mexican elderly women. MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study. Lean body mass was determined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. To define sarcopenia, the SMI was obtained using a cut-off value of 5.5kg/m(2), and the CC cut-off was 31cm. For gait speed and handgrip strength, the cut-off values were 0.8m/s and 20kg, respectively. ResultsA total of 137 women (mean age 73.86.7 years) participated in the study. The prevalence of sarcopenia was 14.6% using SMI and 11.0% using CC (P=0.009). Body mass index was associated with a lower probability of sarcopenia applying SMI or CC (OR 0.75, P=0.002 for SMI and OR 0.71, P=0.004 for CC). Sarcopenia evaluated either with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry or CC was not associated with physical performance, such as five times chair stand test, timed up and go test and short physical performance battery. Additionally, SMI was not associated with physical performance, five times chair stand test (P=0.775) and timed up-and-go test (P=0.341). ConclusionsThe prevalence of sarcopenia in active elderly women was low. A higher prevalence of sarcopenia was detected using SMI compared with CC. It is important to identify the best methods to assess skeletal muscle mass to obtain a reliable diagnosis of sarcopenia. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2017; 17: 161-170.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available