4.7 Article

SARC-F has low correlation and reliability with skeletal muscle mass index in older gastrointestinal cancer patients

期刊

CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 890-894

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2020.08.018

关键词

Skeletal muscle mass; Sarcopenia; SARC-F; Cancer

资金

  1. Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Brazil) [312252/2019-6]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In older cancer outpatients, the SARC-F questionnaire was found to have low correlation and reliability with the skeletal muscle mass index (SMI).
Background & aims: The evaluation of function and muscle mass in older cancer patients is essential to reduce comorbidities. We hypothesized that Simple Questionnaire to Rapidly Diagnose Sarcopenia (SARC-F) questionnaire is useful to assessment the muscle function, but not muscle mass. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the correlation and reliability between the SARC-F and skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) in older gastrointestinal cancer patients. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study enrolled 108 (63.55 +/- 8.9 y) gastrointestinal cancer patients. The patients were evaluated using the SARC-F questionnaire and the muscle mass index (SMI). SMI was calculated using Lee's equation: the appendicular muscle mass (ASM) was divided by height. Pearson's correlation was used to examine the correlation between SARC-F and SMI. The Blande-Altman plot and Cohen's kappa coefficient were used to determine the concordance and reliability between them. Statistical difference was set at p < 0.05. Results: The Blande-Altman plot showed that the difference between methods were within agreement (+/- 1.96; p = 0.001). However, SARC-F has low concordance (k = 0.20; standard error = 0.14) and correlation (r = -0.303; p = 0.0014) with SMI. Conclusion: In older cancer outpatients, we found that SARC-F has low correlation and reliability with SMI. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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