Abstract
ObjectiveThe Mini Sarcopenia Risk Assessment (MSRA), a new sarcopenia screening tool, has 2 versions: MSRA-7 (full version, 7 items) and MSRA-5 (short version, 5 items). We aimed to compare the diagnostic values of MSRA-7 and MSRA-5 to SARC-F for screening sarcopenia. DesignA diagnostic accuracy study. SettingA community in Chengdu, China. ParticipantsOlder adults. MeasurementsMuscle mass, strength, and physical performance were tested using a bioimpedance analysis (BIA) device, handgrip strength, and walking speed, respectively. Using the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) criteria as the gold standard, the sensitivity/specificity analyses of the 3 scales were assessed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the ROC curves (AUC) were used to compare the overall diagnostic accuracy of the 3 scales. ResultsWe recruited 384 participants. Against the AWGS criteria, SARC-F had a sensitivity of 29.5% and a specificity of 98.1%, and the MSRA-7 had a sensitivity of 86.9% and a specificity of 39.6%, whereas the MSRA-5 had a sensitivity of 90.2% and a specificity of 70.6%. The AUCs of SARC-F, MSRA-7, and MSRA-5 were 0.89 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.86-0.92], 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65-0.74), and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.89), respectively. The differences in AUCs between SARC-F and MSRA-7 and in those between MSRA-7 and MSRA-5 were statistically significant (P <.001), but the difference between SARC-F and MSRA-5 was not statistically significant (P = .130). ConclusionMSRA-5 may serve as a novel screening tool for sarcopenia in Chinese community-dwelling older adults. SARC-F, a class screening tool, is also suitable for this population. MSRA-5 and SARC-F demonstrated a similar diagnostic accuracy in our study population. MSRA-5 has better sensitivity, whereas SARC-F has better specificity. However, the diagnostic value of MSRA needs to be further validated in different populations.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
