4.7 Article

SARC-F for Screening of Sarcopenia Among Older Adults: A Meta-analysis of Screening Test Accuracy

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2018.04.001

关键词

Sarcopenia; elderly; accuracy; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the screening ability of SARC-F for older adults using a meta-analysis. Design: Meta-analysis. Setting and Participants: The literature review was conducted using MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Articles written on and after 1960 that included data regarding the sensitivity and specificity of SARC-F's diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia in older adults were searched. Measures: The bivariate random effects model was used to calculate the summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The summary receiver operating characteristic curve was used to summarize the overall test performance. Results: Seven studies involving a total of 12,800 subjects met the eligibility criteria of our study. The pooled results of sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR with the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People as the reference standard were 0.21 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.13-0.31], 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.94), 2.16 (95% CI, 1.51-3.09), 0.87 (95% CI, 0.80-0.95), and 2.47 (95% CI, 1.64-3.74), respectively. Overall, we achieved similar pooled results of sensitivity and specificity for studies using the International Working Group on Sarcopenia and Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia as the reference standards. Because few studies used the Foundation National Institute of Health reference standards, a meta-analysis was not performed. Conclusions/Implications: Although the screening sensitivity performance of SARC-F was poor, its specificity was high; thus, it is an effective tool for selecting subjects who should undergo further testing for confirming a diagnosis of sarcopenia. (C) 2018 AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine.

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