Validations of SARC‐F.
| Author | Country | n | Outcomes |
| Cao et al. [6] | China | 230 | Predicts poor function, grip strength, and hospitalization |
| Woo et al. [7, 8] | Hong Kong | 4000 | Good specificity compared with Asian and European working definitions – predictive of function (gait speed, grip strength, and repeated chair stand) at 4 years and mortality at 10 years |
| Malmstrom [9] | United States: St. Louis United States: Baltimore United States: NHANES | 998 1053 3288 | Instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) deficits, slower chair stands, lower grip strength, lower short physical performance battery scores (cross‐sectionally) and predicted poor IADL deficits, poor physical performance and 6‐year hospitalization IADL deficits, lower grip strength at baseline, and mortality at two‐month follow‐up Slower walk speed, knee extensor strength at baseline, and mortality at 27‐month follow‐up |
| Tanaka [10] | Japan | 235 | Lower grip, leg and respiratory muscle strength, poorer gait speed and walking distance, and poorer balance and SPPB |
| Wu [18] | Taiwan | 670 | Low grip strength and lean mass, poor quality of life, and hospitalization and mortality |
| Parra‐Rodriguez [19] | Mexico | 487 | Reliability. ADL deficits, low gait speed, poor grip strength, lower SPPB |
| Ida [14] | Japan | 207 | Specificity (85.8% men and 72.4% women); sensitivity (14.8 and 33.3%) to EWGOS |
| Kemmler [20] | Germany | 74 | Diagnostic overlap equivalent for SARC‐F to EWGSOP, FNIH, IWGS |
| Rolland [21] | France | 504 | Specificity 85% versus FNIH; lower physical performance |
| Tan [22] | Singapore | 115 | More than two hospitalization in a year; higher rate of falls |
| Kotiarczyk [13] | United States | 141 | Specificity versus EWGSOP 78.7% and versus FNIH 81.1%, low sensitivity |
| Kim [23] | Korea | 1222 | High specificity versus Asian sarcopenia. Poor grip strength, slow walking speed, lower quality of life, poor cognitive performance |
| Ida [15] | Japan | 140 | High specificity (90.89–95.5%) and predictive value (81.5%) in chronic liver disease |
| Peball [24] | Austria | 434 | High prevalence in Parkinson disease compared with the controls |
| Bahat [25] | Turkey | 207 | High specificity and low sensitivity versus EWGSOP, FNIH, IWGS, Society of sarcopenia, cachexia and wasting disorders (SCWD). High specificity for muscle mass, handgrip, SPPB, and sit to stand |
| Su [12] | Hong Kong | 4000 | SARC‐F with FRAX has an increased ability to predict hip fracture |
| Ida [16] | Japan | 318 | SARC‐F associated with sleep disorder |
| Requena‐Calleja [29] | Spain | 596 | SARC‐F increases mortality in persons with atrial fibrillation |
| Nozoe [17] | Japan | 183 | SARC‐F predicts severe stroke |
| Sanchez‐Rodriguez [27] | Spain | 208 | SARC‐F is useful to identify sarcopenic patients in outpatients |
| Tuna [26] | Turkey | 56 | Correlates with poor sleep quality |
| Hajaoui [28] | Belgium | 306 | Specificity of 87.1% and sensitivity of 36.0% compared with EWGSOP1 |
ADL, activities of daily living; EWGSOP, European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People; FNIH, Foundation for the National Institutes of Health; IWGS, International Working Group on Sarcopenia; SPPB, short physical performance battery.
Woo et al. [30] reported that a three‐item scale (strength, ability to climb stairs, and need for assistance in walking) had a better diagnostic area under the curve and better predictive value of bad outcomes compared with the five‐item SARC‐F. Lim et al. [31] studied 200 participants in Singapore and felt that the shorter version was not superior to the full SARC‐F. They did suggest that the falls item was not an important factor in making the diagnosis. Yang et al. [32] found that the three‐item questionnaire had a worse area under the curve than the SARC‐F.
Barbosa‐Silva et al. [33] found that calf circumference together with SARC‐F had greatly improved sensitivity when compared with SARC‐F alone with the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) as a gold standard. Bahat et al. [34] found that SARC‐F plus calf circumference improved specificity but not sensitivity when compared with SARC‐F. In 120 participants in Indonesia, SARC‐F plus calf circumference had good diagnostic performance for sarcopenia [35]. Mo et al. [36] in a meta‐analysis found that SARC‐CalF has excellent accuracy with moderate sensitivity as a diagnostic tool for sarcopenia.
Overall, these studies support the concept that SARC‐F or SARC‐CalF is a good screening tool for sarcopenia. Adding age and body mass index may further enhance its accuracy [37].
OTHER SCREENING TESTS FOR SARCOPENIA
The short portable sarcopenia measure (SPSM) consists of lean muscle mass by bioimpedance, grip strength adjusted for height and five chair stands [38]. The SPSM compares well to DEXA measurements of lean mass. It is more sensitivity but no more specific than the SARC‐F [5].
The
