4.6 Article

SARC-F as a Useful Tool for Screening Sarcopenia in Elderly Patients with Hip Fractures

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION HEALTH & AGING
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 78-82

出版社

SPRINGER FRANCE
DOI: 10.1007/s12603-019-1307-6

关键词

Hip fracture; sarcopenia; screening; SARC-F

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background SARC-F is recommended as a sarcopenia screening tool and comprised of five assessment items: strength, assistance walking, rising from a chair, climbing stairs, and falls. Objective The purpose of this study was to assess whether the SARC-F questionnaire in elderly patients with hip fractures was a valid screening tool for sarcopenia by comparison of the results with criteria from the Europe, Asia, and international working groups. Measurements 115 men and woman with hip fractures were assessed. The SARC-F self-reported questionnaire scores range from 0 to 10 and a score >= 4 defines sarcopenia. These survey questions were used to calculate the SARC-F score. Measurements, including appendicular muscle mass, were taken using dual-energy X-ray and grip strength using a dynamometer. Classification using the SARC-F score was compared using the consensus panel criteria from the international, European, and Asian sarcopenia working groups. The performance of all four methods was compared by examining the predictive ability using a ROC curve. Results A total of 115 subjects were included and the sarcopenia prevalence rate (SARC-F score >= 4) was 63.5 percent. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value PPV with the EWGSOP-2 criteria in Older People as the reference standard were 95.35 %, 56.94 %, 56.94%, 95.35%, and 71.3%, respectively. In addition, we found similar results for sensitivity and specificity as studies using the EWGSOP and AWGS criteria. Conclusions The SARC-F questionnaire is a useful screening tool for elderly patients with hip fractures. This finding supports the recommendation of SARC-F as a screening tool for sarcopenia from the EWGSOP2.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据