PMID- 35433779
OWN - NLM
STAT- PubMed-not-MEDLINE
LR  - 20220419
IS  - 2296-861X (Print)
IS  - 2296-861X (Electronic)
IS  - 2296-861X (Linking)
VI  - 9
DP  - 2022
TI  - Comparing SARC-CalF With SARC-F for Screening Sarcopenia in Adults With Type 2 
      Diabetes Mellitus.
PG  - 803924
LID - 10.3389/fnut.2022.803924 [doi]
LID - 803924
AB  - BACKGROUND: The prevalence of sarcopenia is high in older people with type 2 
      diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and is now considered a critical problem in the 
      healthcare sector. However, the preferred screening tool for identifying 
      sarcopenia remains unknown. Thus, the aim of this study was to ensure that the 
      diagnostic values of the SARC-F (strength, assisting with walking, rising from a 
      chair, climbing stairs, and falling) and SARC-CalF (SARC and calf circumference) 
      scales were compared with five reference diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia. 
      METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. Patients diagnosed with diabetes were 
      treated at the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University. 
      Appendicular skeletal muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance were 
      assessed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, handgrip strength, and gait 
      speed assessment. Five diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia (Asian Working Group 
      for Sarcopenia, International Working Group on Sarcopenia, Foundation for the 
      National Institutes of Health, Sarcopenia Project, Society on Sarcopenia Cachexia 
      and Wasting Disorders, and European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 
      criteria) were utilized. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed on 
      the SARC-CalF and SARC-F scales. The diagnostic precision of both instruments was 
      determined using the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area 
      under the ROC curves (AUC). RESULTS: This study included 689 subjects (459 men 
      and 230 women) with a mean age of 58.1 +/- 13.2 years. In accordance with the five 
      reference diagnostic parameters, the prevalence of sarcopenia was between 4.5 and 
      19.2%. In addition, the range of sensitivity of SARC-F and SARC-CalF ranged from 
      61.4 to 67.4 and 82.6 to 91.8%, respectively. Concurrently, the specificity 
      ranged from 63.1 to 67.3 and 51.5 to 61.2%, respectively. Overall, AUC values for 
      SARC-CalF were higher than those for SARC-F, regardless of the diagnostic 
      standard, sex, or age. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that 
      SARC-CalF significantly enhances the sensitivity and overall diagnosis of SARC-F. 
      SARC-CalF appears to be an optimal screening tool for sarcopenia in adults with 
      T2DM.
CI  - Copyright (c) 2022 Xu, Zhang, Chen, Jiang, Zhou and Zhu.
FAU - Xu, Zeru
AU  - Xu Z
AD  - Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, The First Affiliated Hospital of 
      Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
FAU - Zhang, Ping
AU  - Zhang P
AD  - Department of Endocrinology, The Second People's Hospital of Xining, Xining, 
      China.
FAU - Chen, Yifei
AU  - Chen Y
AD  - Department of Medicine, Changsha Medical University, Changsha, China.
FAU - Jiang, Jiahong
AU  - Jiang J
AD  - Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, The First Affiliated Hospital of 
      Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
FAU - Zhou, Zijun
AU  - Zhou Z
AD  - Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, The First Affiliated Hospital of 
      Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
FAU - Zhu, Hong
AU  - Zhu H
AD  - Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, The First Affiliated Hospital of 
      Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20220331
PL  - Switzerland
TA  - Front Nutr
JT  - Frontiers in nutrition
JID - 101642264
PMC - PMC9009513
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - SARC-CalF
OT  - SARC-F
OT  - diagnostic criteria
OT  - sarcopenia
OT  - sensitivity
OT  - specificity
OT  - type 2 diabetes mellitus
COIS- The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any 
      commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential 
      conflict of interest.
EDAT- 2022/04/19 06:00
MHDA- 2022/04/19 06:01
PMCR- 2022/01/01
CRDT- 2022/04/18 06:39
PHST- 2021/10/28 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2022/02/28 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2022/04/18 06:39 [entrez]
PHST- 2022/04/19 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2022/04/19 06:01 [medline]
PHST- 2022/01/01 00:00 [pmc-release]
AID - 10.3389/fnut.2022.803924 [doi]
PST - epublish
SO  - Front Nutr. 2022 Mar 31;9:803924. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.803924. eCollection 
      2022.