PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Li, Jie
AU  - Yang, Yujie
AU  - Gao, Menglin
AU  - Yuan, Huaihong
TI  - Comparative accuracy of five screening tools for sarcopenia in community older adults:a systematic review and a network meta-analysis
AID  - 10.1101/2024.04.16.24305890
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.04.16.24305890
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/17/2024.04.16.24305890.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/17/2024.04.16.24305890.full
AB  - Background Sarcopenia, a prevalent and serious condition among community older adults, often remains unnoticed. The use of systematic screening has the potential to enhance detection rates; however, there is currently no consensus on the most effective approach. This study ai med to assess the diagnostic test accuracy of five simple sarcopenia screening tools and determine which test has the highest accuracy.Objective To assess and compare the accuracy of five screening tools for sarcopenia in community older adults.Design A systematic review and a network meta analysis.Methods A systematic search was conducted in various databases including Pubmed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and Sinomed up to September 2023. Studies reporting on the accuracy of diagnostic testing for sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults using one or more of the following sarcopenia screening tools were included: Sarcopenia Simple Five-Item Rati ng Scale (SARC-F), SARC-F combined with calf circumference (SA RC-CalF), SARC-F combined with older adults and BMI (SARC-F+ EBM), Mini sarcopenia risk assessment-5 (MSRA-5), and Mini sarcopenia risk assessment-7 (MSRA-7). The reference standard was the Asian Working Group on Sarcopenia (AWGS), the European Working Group on Sarcopenia on Older People (EWGSOP), the Foundation for National Institutes of Health (FNIH), or the International Working Group on Sarcopenia (IWGS). Random-effects bivariate binomial model meta-analyses, meta-regressions and a network meta-analysis were used to estimate the pooled and relative sensitivities and specificities.Results We identified and evaluated 22 papers focused on SARC-F, S ARC-CalF, MSRA-5, and MSRA-7. Traditional meta-analysis sorting results showed summary sensitivities of 0.25, 0.59, 0.43, 0.82, and 0.51, summary specificities of 0.94, 0.82, 0.81, 0.39, and 0.85, summary AUC of 0.80, 0.76, 0.70, 0.68, and 0.75, and summary DOR of 5, 7, 3, 3, and 6. The network meta-analysis ranking results showed that MRSA-5 had the highest sensitivity (92.27) and SARC-F had the highest specificity (99.81) under the cumulative ranking.Linking evidence to action The MSRA can be used as a tool for screening sarcopenia in community older adults, while the SARC-F can be used for first-time diagnosis of sarcopenia in this population. However, it is important to interpret the results with caution due to the variability among different studies analyzing the accuracy of this diagnostic test. Future research should focus on obtaining additional evidence from large sample sizes and high-quality studies.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe author(s) received no specific funding for this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:N/AI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.