Cargando…

Comparison of the performance of five screening methods for sarcopenia

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia leads to serious adverse health consequences. There is a dearth of screening tools for this condition, and performances of these instruments have rarely been evaluated. Our aim was to compare the performance of five screening tools for identifying elders at risk of sarcopenia...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Locquet, Médéa, Beaudart, Charlotte, Reginster, Jean-Yves, Petermans, Jean, Bruyère, Olivier
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5749553/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29343989
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S148638
_version_ 1783289602791964672
author Locquet, Médéa
Beaudart, Charlotte
Reginster, Jean-Yves
Petermans, Jean
Bruyère, Olivier
author_facet Locquet, Médéa
Beaudart, Charlotte
Reginster, Jean-Yves
Petermans, Jean
Bruyère, Olivier
author_sort Locquet, Médéa
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia leads to serious adverse health consequences. There is a dearth of screening tools for this condition, and performances of these instruments have rarely been evaluated. Our aim was to compare the performance of five screening tools for identifying elders at risk of sarcopenia against five diagnostic definitions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We gathered cross-sectional data of elders from the SarcoPhAge (“Sarco”penia and “Ph”ysical Impairment with Advancing “Age”) study. Lean mass was measured with X-ray absorptiometry, muscle strength with a dynamometer and physical performance with the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) test. Performances of screening methods were described using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and area under the curve (AUC), according to five diagnostic definitions of sarcopenia. For each screening tool, optimal cutoff points were computed using two methods. RESULTS: A total of 306 subjects (74.8±5.9 years, 59.5% women) were included. The prevalence of sarcopenia varied from 5.7% to 16.7% depending on the definition. The best sensitivity (up to 100%) and the best NPV (up to 99.1%) were obtained with the screening test of Ishii et al, regardless of the definition applied. The highest AUC (up to 0.914) was also demonstrated by the instrument of Ishii et al. The most specific tool was the algorithm of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP; up to 91.1%). All NPVs were above 87.0%, and all PPVs were below 51.0%. New cutoffs related to each screening instrument were also proposed to better discriminate sarcopenic individuals from non-sarcopenic individuals. CONCLUSION: Screening instruments for sarcopenia can be relevantly used in clinical practice to make sure to identify individuals who do not suffer from the syndrome. The screening test of Ishii et al showed better properties in terms of distinguishing those at risk of sarcopenia from those who were not at risk.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5749553
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57495532018-01-17 Comparison of the performance of five screening methods for sarcopenia Locquet, Médéa Beaudart, Charlotte Reginster, Jean-Yves Petermans, Jean Bruyère, Olivier Clin Epidemiol Original Research BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia leads to serious adverse health consequences. There is a dearth of screening tools for this condition, and performances of these instruments have rarely been evaluated. Our aim was to compare the performance of five screening tools for identifying elders at risk of sarcopenia against five diagnostic definitions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We gathered cross-sectional data of elders from the SarcoPhAge (“Sarco”penia and “Ph”ysical Impairment with Advancing “Age”) study. Lean mass was measured with X-ray absorptiometry, muscle strength with a dynamometer and physical performance with the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) test. Performances of screening methods were described using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and area under the curve (AUC), according to five diagnostic definitions of sarcopenia. For each screening tool, optimal cutoff points were computed using two methods. RESULTS: A total of 306 subjects (74.8±5.9 years, 59.5% women) were included. The prevalence of sarcopenia varied from 5.7% to 16.7% depending on the definition. The best sensitivity (up to 100%) and the best NPV (up to 99.1%) were obtained with the screening test of Ishii et al, regardless of the definition applied. The highest AUC (up to 0.914) was also demonstrated by the instrument of Ishii et al. The most specific tool was the algorithm of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP; up to 91.1%). All NPVs were above 87.0%, and all PPVs were below 51.0%. New cutoffs related to each screening instrument were also proposed to better discriminate sarcopenic individuals from non-sarcopenic individuals. CONCLUSION: Screening instruments for sarcopenia can be relevantly used in clinical practice to make sure to identify individuals who do not suffer from the syndrome. The screening test of Ishii et al showed better properties in terms of distinguishing those at risk of sarcopenia from those who were not at risk. Dove Medical Press 2017-12-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5749553/ /pubmed/29343989 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S148638 Text en © 2018 Locquet et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
Locquet, Médéa
Beaudart, Charlotte
Reginster, Jean-Yves
Petermans, Jean
Bruyère, Olivier
Comparison of the performance of five screening methods for sarcopenia
title Comparison of the performance of five screening methods for sarcopenia
title_full Comparison of the performance of five screening methods for sarcopenia
title_fullStr Comparison of the performance of five screening methods for sarcopenia
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the performance of five screening methods for sarcopenia
title_short Comparison of the performance of five screening methods for sarcopenia
title_sort comparison of the performance of five screening methods for sarcopenia
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5749553/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29343989
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S148638
work_keys_str_mv AT locquetmedea comparisonoftheperformanceoffivescreeningmethodsforsarcopenia
AT beaudartcharlotte comparisonoftheperformanceoffivescreeningmethodsforsarcopenia
AT reginsterjeanyves comparisonoftheperformanceoffivescreeningmethodsforsarcopenia
AT petermansjean comparisonoftheperformanceoffivescreeningmethodsforsarcopenia
AT bruyereolivier comparisonoftheperformanceoffivescreeningmethodsforsarcopenia