Accuracy of four sarcopenia screening methods in patients with chronic stroke in Thailand: a cross-sectional study.

IF 2.2 4区医学 Q1 REHABILITATION

Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-09-30 DOI:10.1080/10749357.2024.2409000

Kannanat Laosuwan, Ratana Vichiansiri, Charoonsak Somboonporn, Jittima Saengsuwan

{"title":"Accuracy of four sarcopenia screening methods in patients with chronic stroke in Thailand: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Kannanat Laosuwan, Ratana Vichiansiri, Charoonsak Somboonporn, Jittima Saengsuwan","doi":"10.1080/10749357.2024.2409000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of screening tools for sarcopenia and to determine whether the same or different cutoff points should be applied in patients with chronic stroke.Materials and methods: Sixty-eight participants with residual hemiparetic deficit for over 6 months were enrolled. We evaluated the accuracy of calf circumference, SARC-F questionnaire, SARC-CalF, and Ishii's score chart using the Asia Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) 2019 revised criteria as the gold standard.Results: Sarcopenia was identified in 22 participants (32.4%) based on the AWGS criteria. Overall, SARC-F showed the lowest diagnostic accuracy. The Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curves (AUC) of calf circumference, SARC-F, SARC-CalF, and Ishii's score chart were 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.88), 0.58 (95% CI, 0.42-0.74), 0.75 (95% CI, 0.62-0.87), and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.65-0.90), respectively. The mean AUC of SARC-F was inferior to SARC-CalF (0.58 vs. 0.75, p = 0.035).Conclusions: The accuracy and diagnostic properties of calf circumference, SARC-CalF, and Ishii's score chart were comparable (mean AUC of 0.77, 0.75, and 0.78, respectively). SARC-F showed the lowest accuracy (mean AUC = 0.58). The recommended screening tools are calf circumference, SARC-CalF, and Ishii's score chart. It is not recommended to rely solely on SARC-F for screening sarcopenia after stroke. We proposed potential new cutoff points for each screening instrument, including SARC-F, SARC-CalF, calf circumference in women, and Ishii's score chart for both men and women.","PeriodicalId":23164,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2024.2409000","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of screening tools for sarcopenia and to determine whether the same or different cutoff points should be applied in patients with chronic stroke.

Materials and methods: Sixty-eight participants with residual hemiparetic deficit for over 6 months were enrolled. We evaluated the accuracy of calf circumference, SARC-F questionnaire, SARC-CalF, and Ishii's score chart using the Asia Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) 2019 revised criteria as the gold standard.

Results: Sarcopenia was identified in 22 participants (32.4%) based on the AWGS criteria. Overall, SARC-F showed the lowest diagnostic accuracy. The Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curves (AUC) of calf circumference, SARC-F, SARC-CalF, and Ishii's score chart were 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-0.88), 0.58 (95% CI, 0.42-0.74), 0.75 (95% CI, 0.62-0.87), and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.65-0.90), respectively. The mean AUC of SARC-F was inferior to SARC-CalF (0.58 vs. 0.75, p = 0.035).

Conclusions: The accuracy and diagnostic properties of calf circumference, SARC-CalF, and Ishii's score chart were comparable (mean AUC of 0.77, 0.75, and 0.78, respectively). SARC-F showed the lowest accuracy (mean AUC = 0.58). The recommended screening tools are calf circumference, SARC-CalF, and Ishii's score chart. It is not recommended to rely solely on SARC-F for screening sarcopenia after stroke. We proposed potential new cutoff points for each screening instrument, including SARC-F, SARC-CalF, calf circumference in women, and Ishii's score chart for both men and women.

查看原文本刊更多论文

泰国慢性中风患者中四种肌肉疏松症筛查方法的准确性：一项横断面研究。

目的：本研究旨在评估肌肉疏松症筛查工具的准确性，并确定慢性中风患者是否应采用相同或不同的临界点：我们共招募了 68 名残余偏瘫超过 6 个月的患者。我们以亚洲肌肉疏松症工作组（AWGS）2019 年修订标准为金标准，评估了小腿围、SARC-F 问卷、SARC-CalF 和石井评分表的准确性：根据 AWGS 标准，22 名参与者（32.4%）被确诊为 "肌肉疏松症"。总体而言，SARC-F 的诊断准确率最低。小腿围、SARC-F、SARC-CalF 和石井氏评分表的接收者操作特征曲线下面积（AUC）分别为 0.77（95% 置信区间[CI]，0.66-0.88）、0.58（95% CI，0.42-0.74）、0.75（95% CI，0.62-0.87）和 0.78（95% CI，0.65-0.90）。SARC-F的平均AUC低于SARC-CalF（0.58 vs. 0.75，p = 0.035）：结论：小腿围、SARC-CalF 和石井氏评分表的准确性和诊断特性相当（平均 AUC 分别为 0.77、0.75 和 0.78）。SARC-F 的准确性最低（平均 AUC = 0.58）。推荐的筛查工具是小腿围、SARC-CalF 和 Ishii 评分表。不建议仅依靠 SARC-F 来筛查卒中后肌少症。我们为每种筛查工具提出了潜在的新截断点，包括 SARC-F、SARC-CalF、女性小腿围、男女石井评分表。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

4.50%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation is the leading journal devoted to the study and dissemination of interdisciplinary, evidence-based, clinical information related to stroke rehabilitation. The journal’s scope covers physical medicine and rehabilitation, neurology, neurorehabilitation, neural engineering and therapeutics, neuropsychology and cognition, optimization of the rehabilitation system, robotics and biomechanics, pain management, nursing, physical therapy, cardiopulmonary fitness, mobility, occupational therapy, speech pathology and communication. There is a particular focus on stroke recovery, improving rehabilitation outcomes, quality of life, activities of daily living, motor control, family and care givers, and community issues. The journal reviews and reports clinical practices, clinical trials, state-of-the-art concepts, and new developments in stroke research and patient care. Both primary research papers, reviews of existing literature, and invited editorials, are included. Sharply-focused, single-issue topics, and the latest in clinical research, provide in-depth knowledge.